Sunday, June 21, 2015
Biblical criticism and other Wikipedia pages
Antitheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on
Irreligion
"αθεοι" (atheoi), Greek for "those without god", as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians on the third-century papyrus known as "Papyrus 46"
Irreligion[show]
Atheism[show]
Agnosticism[show]
Nontheism[show]
Naturalism[show]
People[show]
Books[show]
Secularist organizations[show]
Related topics[show]
Irreligion by country
v ·
t ·
e
See also: Antireligion and Religious discrimination
Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.
Contents [hide]
1 Opposition to theism
2 Opposition to the idea of God
3 Other uses
4 Etymology
5 See also
6 Notes
7 References
Opposition to theism[edit]
The Oxford English Dictionary defines antitheist as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god". The earliest citation given for this meaning dates from 1833.[1] An antitheist may oppose belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.
Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous or destructive. Christopher Hitchens offers an example of this approach in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which he writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."[2]
Opposition to the idea of God[edit]
The Chambers Dictionary defines antitheism in three different ways: "doctrine antagonistic to theism; 'denial' of the existence of a God; opposition to God." To be clear, "opposition to God" is not in most meanings a statement that an anti-theist believes in a deity but opposes the being in the manner of maltheism, but for various reasons the position that it would be bad/immoral for such a being to exist. All three match Hitchens' usage, not only a generally anti-religious belief and disbelief in a deity, but also opposition to a god's existence. The second is synonymous with strong atheism. The third and first, on the other hand, need not be atheistic at all.
Earlier definitions of antitheism include that of the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain (1953), for whom it is "an active struggle against everything that reminds us of God" (p. 104), and that of Robert Flint (1877), Professor of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh. Flint's Baird Lecture for 1877 was entitled Anti-Theistic Theories.[3] He used it as a very general umbrella term for all opposition to his own form of theism, which he defined as the "belief that the heavens and the earth and all that they contain owe their existence and continuance to the wisdom and will of a supreme, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, and benevolent Being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what He has created."[4] He wrote:
In dealing with theories which have nothing in common except that they are antagonistic to theism, it is necessary to have a general term to designate them. Anti-theism appears to be the appropriate word. It is, of course, much more comprehensive in meaning than the term atheism. It applies to all systems which are opposed to theism. It includes, therefore, atheism... But short of atheism there are anti-theistic theories. Polytheism is not atheism, for it does not deny that there is a Deity; but it is anti-theistic, since it denies that there is only one. Pantheism is not atheism, for it admits that there is a God; but it is anti-theism, for it denies that God is a being distinct from creation and possessed of such attributes as wisdom, and holiness, and love. Every theory which refuses to ascribe to God an attribute which is essential to a worthy conception of His character is anti-theistic. Only those theories which refuse to acknowledge that there is evidence even for the existence of a God are atheistic.[5]
However, Flint also acknowledges that antitheism is typically understood differently from how he defines it. In particular, he notes that it has been used as a subdivision of atheism, descriptive of the view that theism has been disproven, rather than as the more general term that Flint prefers. He rejects non-theistic as an alternative, "not merely because of its hybrid origin and character, but also because it is far too comprehensive. Theories of physical and mental science are non-theistic, even when in no degree, directly or indirectly, antagonistic to theism."[6]
Opposition to God is frequently referred to as dystheism (which means "belief in a deity that is not benevolent") or misotheism (strictly speaking, this means "hatred of God"). Examples of belief systems founded on the principle of opposition to God include some forms of Atheistic or Theistic Satanism, and maltheism.
Other uses[edit]
See also: Misotheism § Terminology
Another use of the term antitheism was coined by Christopher New in a thought experiment published in 1993. In his article, he imagines what arguments for the existence of an evil God would look like: "Antitheists, like theists, would have believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal creator; but whereas theists in fact believe that the supreme being is also perfectly good, antitheists would have believed that he was perfectly evil."[7] New's usage has reappeared in the work of Wallace A. Murphree.[8]
Etymology[edit]
The word "antitheism" (or the hyphenated "anti-theism") has been recorded in English since 1788.[9] The etymological roots of the word are the Greek anti and theos.
See also[edit]
Portal icon Atheism portal
Anti-clericalism
Antireligion
Atheism
Criticism of atheism
Criticism of religion
Evil God Challenge
Humanism
Misotheism
New atheism
Nontheistic religions
Post-theism
Religious intolerance
State atheism
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ The Shorter OED (1970 reprint) page 78
2.Jump up ^ "Christopher Hitchens - Book Excerpt". Archived from the original on 2009-09-15.
3.Jump up ^ Flint, Robert (1894). Anti-Theistic Theories: Being the Baird Lecture for 1877 (5 ed.). London: William Blackwood and Sons.
4.Jump up ^ Flint, p. 1
5.Jump up ^ Flint, p. 23
6.Jump up ^ Flint, p. 444–445
7.Jump up ^ New, Christopher (June 1993). "Antitheism – A Reflection". Ratio 6 (1): 36–43. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9329.1993.tb00051.x.. See also: Daniels, Charles B. (1997). "God, demon, good, evil", The Journal of Value Inquiry, Vol. 31 (2), June, pp.177–181.
8.Jump up ^ Murphree, Wallace A. (1997). "Natural Theology: theism or antitheism", Sophia, Vol.36 (1), March, pp.75–83
9.Jump up ^ "antitheism". Online Etymology Dictionary.
References[edit]
Barker, Dan Evangelistic Atheism: Leading Believers Astray in Freethought Today, 1993 at the Wayback Machine (archived November 26, 2005)
Browne, Janet, The Power of Place, Volume 2 of the Biography of Charles Darwin.(Alfred Knopf, 2002)
Hitchens, Christopher (2001). Letters to a Young Contrarian (ISBN 0-465-03032-7). New York: Basic Books.
Maritain, Jacques (1953). The Range of Reason. London: Geoffrey Bles. Electronic Text Note: Chapter 8, The Meaning of Contemporary Atheism (p. 103–117, Electronic Text) is reprinted from Review of Politics, Vol. 11 (3) July 1949, p. 267–280 Electronic Text. A version also appears The Listener, Vol. 43 No.1102, 9 March 1950. pp. 427–429,432.
Segal, David, Atheist Evangelist, article in the Washington Post Thursday, October 26, 2006; Page C01
Witham, Larry, By Design (Encounter Books, 2003)
Wolff, Gary, in The New Atheism, The Church of the Non-Believers reprinted in Wired Magazine, November 2006
Wright, N. T., The Last Word (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005)
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Irreligion
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Theological thought
Portal icon
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Criticism of religion
Categories: Antireligion
Antitheism
Atheism
Criticism of religion
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
ქართული
Lietuvių
Nederlands
Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Shqip
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 5 June 2015, at 11:51.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
Antitheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on
Irreligion
"αθεοι" (atheoi), Greek for "those without god", as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians on the third-century papyrus known as "Papyrus 46"
Irreligion[show]
Atheism[show]
Agnosticism[show]
Nontheism[show]
Naturalism[show]
People[show]
Books[show]
Secularist organizations[show]
Related topics[show]
Irreligion by country
v ·
t ·
e
See also: Antireligion and Religious discrimination
Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.
Contents [hide]
1 Opposition to theism
2 Opposition to the idea of God
3 Other uses
4 Etymology
5 See also
6 Notes
7 References
Opposition to theism[edit]
The Oxford English Dictionary defines antitheist as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god". The earliest citation given for this meaning dates from 1833.[1] An antitheist may oppose belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.
Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous or destructive. Christopher Hitchens offers an example of this approach in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which he writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."[2]
Opposition to the idea of God[edit]
The Chambers Dictionary defines antitheism in three different ways: "doctrine antagonistic to theism; 'denial' of the existence of a God; opposition to God." To be clear, "opposition to God" is not in most meanings a statement that an anti-theist believes in a deity but opposes the being in the manner of maltheism, but for various reasons the position that it would be bad/immoral for such a being to exist. All three match Hitchens' usage, not only a generally anti-religious belief and disbelief in a deity, but also opposition to a god's existence. The second is synonymous with strong atheism. The third and first, on the other hand, need not be atheistic at all.
Earlier definitions of antitheism include that of the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain (1953), for whom it is "an active struggle against everything that reminds us of God" (p. 104), and that of Robert Flint (1877), Professor of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh. Flint's Baird Lecture for 1877 was entitled Anti-Theistic Theories.[3] He used it as a very general umbrella term for all opposition to his own form of theism, which he defined as the "belief that the heavens and the earth and all that they contain owe their existence and continuance to the wisdom and will of a supreme, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, and benevolent Being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what He has created."[4] He wrote:
In dealing with theories which have nothing in common except that they are antagonistic to theism, it is necessary to have a general term to designate them. Anti-theism appears to be the appropriate word. It is, of course, much more comprehensive in meaning than the term atheism. It applies to all systems which are opposed to theism. It includes, therefore, atheism... But short of atheism there are anti-theistic theories. Polytheism is not atheism, for it does not deny that there is a Deity; but it is anti-theistic, since it denies that there is only one. Pantheism is not atheism, for it admits that there is a God; but it is anti-theism, for it denies that God is a being distinct from creation and possessed of such attributes as wisdom, and holiness, and love. Every theory which refuses to ascribe to God an attribute which is essential to a worthy conception of His character is anti-theistic. Only those theories which refuse to acknowledge that there is evidence even for the existence of a God are atheistic.[5]
However, Flint also acknowledges that antitheism is typically understood differently from how he defines it. In particular, he notes that it has been used as a subdivision of atheism, descriptive of the view that theism has been disproven, rather than as the more general term that Flint prefers. He rejects non-theistic as an alternative, "not merely because of its hybrid origin and character, but also because it is far too comprehensive. Theories of physical and mental science are non-theistic, even when in no degree, directly or indirectly, antagonistic to theism."[6]
Opposition to God is frequently referred to as dystheism (which means "belief in a deity that is not benevolent") or misotheism (strictly speaking, this means "hatred of God"). Examples of belief systems founded on the principle of opposition to God include some forms of Atheistic or Theistic Satanism, and maltheism.
Other uses[edit]
See also: Misotheism § Terminology
Another use of the term antitheism was coined by Christopher New in a thought experiment published in 1993. In his article, he imagines what arguments for the existence of an evil God would look like: "Antitheists, like theists, would have believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal creator; but whereas theists in fact believe that the supreme being is also perfectly good, antitheists would have believed that he was perfectly evil."[7] New's usage has reappeared in the work of Wallace A. Murphree.[8]
Etymology[edit]
The word "antitheism" (or the hyphenated "anti-theism") has been recorded in English since 1788.[9] The etymological roots of the word are the Greek anti and theos.
See also[edit]
Portal icon Atheism portal
Anti-clericalism
Antireligion
Atheism
Criticism of atheism
Criticism of religion
Evil God Challenge
Humanism
Misotheism
New atheism
Nontheistic religions
Post-theism
Religious intolerance
State atheism
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ The Shorter OED (1970 reprint) page 78
2.Jump up ^ "Christopher Hitchens - Book Excerpt". Archived from the original on 2009-09-15.
3.Jump up ^ Flint, Robert (1894). Anti-Theistic Theories: Being the Baird Lecture for 1877 (5 ed.). London: William Blackwood and Sons.
4.Jump up ^ Flint, p. 1
5.Jump up ^ Flint, p. 23
6.Jump up ^ Flint, p. 444–445
7.Jump up ^ New, Christopher (June 1993). "Antitheism – A Reflection". Ratio 6 (1): 36–43. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9329.1993.tb00051.x.. See also: Daniels, Charles B. (1997). "God, demon, good, evil", The Journal of Value Inquiry, Vol. 31 (2), June, pp.177–181.
8.Jump up ^ Murphree, Wallace A. (1997). "Natural Theology: theism or antitheism", Sophia, Vol.36 (1), March, pp.75–83
9.Jump up ^ "antitheism". Online Etymology Dictionary.
References[edit]
Barker, Dan Evangelistic Atheism: Leading Believers Astray in Freethought Today, 1993 at the Wayback Machine (archived November 26, 2005)
Browne, Janet, The Power of Place, Volume 2 of the Biography of Charles Darwin.(Alfred Knopf, 2002)
Hitchens, Christopher (2001). Letters to a Young Contrarian (ISBN 0-465-03032-7). New York: Basic Books.
Maritain, Jacques (1953). The Range of Reason. London: Geoffrey Bles. Electronic Text Note: Chapter 8, The Meaning of Contemporary Atheism (p. 103–117, Electronic Text) is reprinted from Review of Politics, Vol. 11 (3) July 1949, p. 267–280 Electronic Text. A version also appears The Listener, Vol. 43 No.1102, 9 March 1950. pp. 427–429,432.
Segal, David, Atheist Evangelist, article in the Washington Post Thursday, October 26, 2006; Page C01
Witham, Larry, By Design (Encounter Books, 2003)
Wolff, Gary, in The New Atheism, The Church of the Non-Believers reprinted in Wired Magazine, November 2006
Wright, N. T., The Last Word (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005)
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Irreligion
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Theological thought
Portal icon
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Criticism of religion
Categories: Antireligion
Antitheism
Atheism
Criticism of religion
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
ქართული
Lietuvių
Nederlands
Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Shqip
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 5 June 2015, at 11:51.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
Antireligion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See also: Religious discrimination and Antitheism
Part of a series on
Irreligion
"αθεοι" (atheoi), Greek for "those without god", as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians on the third-century papyrus known as "Papyrus 46"
Irreligion[show]
Atheism[show]
Agnosticism[show]
Nontheism[show]
Naturalism[show]
People[show]
Books[show]
Secularist organizations[show]
Related topics[show]
Irreligion by country
v ·
t ·
e
Antireligion is opposition to religion. Antireligion is distinct from atheism (the absence of a belief in deities) and antitheism (an opposition to belief in deities), although antireligionists may be atheists or antitheists. The term may be used to describe opposition to organized religion, or to describe a broader opposition to any form of belief in the supernatural or the divine.
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Notable anti-religious people
3 See also
4 References
History[edit]
Unbalanced scales.svg
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2013)
According to historian Michael Burleigh, antireligion found its first mass expression in revolutionary France in response to organised resistance to "organised ... irreligion...an 'anti-clerical' and self-styled 'non-religious' state."[1]
The Soviet Union directed antireligious campaigns at all faiths,[2] including Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Shamanist religions. In the 1930s, during the Stalinist period, the government destroyed church buildings or put them into secular use (as museums of religion and atheism, clubs or storage facilities), executed clergy, prohibited the publication of most religious material and persecuted some members of religious groups.[2][3] Less violent attempts to reduce or eliminate the influence of religion in society were also carried out at other times in Soviet history. For instance, it was usually necessary to be an atheist in order to acquire any important political position or any prestigious scientific job; thus many people became atheists in order to advance their careers. Different sources disagree on the results of all this, with some claiming the death of 21 million Russian Orthodox Christians by the Soviet government, not including other religious groups or persecutions without killings,[4] and other sources stating that only up to 500,000 Russian Orthodox Christians were persecuted by the Soviet government, not including other religious groups.[5]
The atheist state of the People's Republic of Albania had an objective for the eventual destruction of all religion in Albania, including a constitutional ban on religious activity and propaganda.[6] The government nationalised most property of religious institutions and used it for non-religious purposes. Religious literature was banned. Many clergy and theists were tried, tortured, and executed. All foreign Roman Catholic clergy were expelled in 1946.[6][7] Albania was the only country that ever officially banned religion.
The Khmer Rouge attempted to eliminate Cambodia's cultural heritage, including its religions. In the process, its acolytes killed nearly 1.7 million people.[8]
Notable anti-religious people[edit]
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
IntellectualsDavid Hume (1711-1776), Scottish agnostic philosopher, known for his skepticism, who wrote that human reason is wholly inadequate to make any assumptions about the divine, whether through a priori reasoning or observation of nature.[9]
Thomas Paine (1737–1809), English-American author and deist who wrote a scathing critique on religion in the The Age of Reason (1793-4). "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish [i.e. Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit".[10]
Karl Marx (1818–1883), German philosopher, social scientist, socialist. He is well known for his anti-religious views. He called religion "the opium of the people".[11]
John Dewey (1859–1952), an American pragmatist philosopher, who believed neither religion nor metaphysics could provide legitimate moral or social values, though scientific empiricism could (see science of morality).[12]
Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), British logician and philosopher who believed that authentic philosophy could only be pursued given an atheistic foundation of "unyielding despair". In 1948, he famously debated the Jesuit priest and philosophical historian Father Frederick Copleston on the existence of God.[13]
Richard Dawkins (born 1941), English biologist, one of the "four horsemen" of New Atheism. He wrote The God Delusion, criticizing belief in the divine, in 2006.[14]
Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011), British-American author and journalist, wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything in 2007[15]
Steven Pinker (born 1954), Canadian-American cognitive scientist who believes religion incites violence.[16]
Sam Harris (born 1967), American author and neuroscientist, who argues that religious moderation provides cover for dangerous fundamentalism.[17]
PZ Myers (born 1957), American biologist.
Phil Zuckerman (born 1969), American sociologist.
PoliticiansVladimir Lenin, Soviet leader from 1917 until 1924, who, like most Marxists, believed all religions to be "the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class"[18]
Joseph Stalin, Soviet leader between 1924 to 1953
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, Tamil politician, between 1938-73, who propagated the principles of rationalism, self-respect, women’s rights and eradication of caste in South India.
Enver Hoxha, Albanian communist leader between 1944 and 1985
Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet leader in 1953-64, who initiated, among other measures,[19][20] the 1958-1964 Soviet anti-religious campaign.
OthersBill Maher, who wrote and starred in Religulous, a 2008 documentary criticizing and mocking religion.
Jim Jefferies, Australian comedian
Marcus Brigstocke, British comedian
George Carlin, American comedian
James Randi, former magician, professional "debunker" of psychics, outspoken atheist and founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation.[21][22]
Philip Roth, contemporary Jewish-American novelist.[23]
See also[edit]
Anti-Catholicism
Anti-Christian sentiment
Anti-clericalism
Anti-Islamism, as distinct from Islamophobia
Anti-Judaism
Anti-Mormonism
Anti-Protestantism
Anti-Buddhism
Antitheism
Conflict thesis
Criticism of Islam
Discrimination against atheists
Evidentialism
Faith and rationality
Freethought
New Atheism
Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
Persecution of Christians
Relationship between religion and science
Religious discrimination against Neopagans
Religious intolerance
Religious persecution
Religious segregation
State atheism
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Michael Burleigh Earthly Powers p 96-97 ISBN 0-00-719572-9
2.^ Jump up to: a b http://countrystudies.us/russia/38.htm
3.Jump up ^ Timasheff, N. S. (1941). "The Church in the Soviet Union 1917 - 1941". Russian Review 1 (1): 20–30. doi:10.2307/125428. JSTOR 125428.
4.Jump up ^ World Christian trends, AD 30-AD 2200, p.230-246 Tables 4-5 & 4-10 By David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, Christopher R. Guidry, Peter F. Crossing NOTE: They define 'martyr' on p235 as only including christians killed for faith and excluding other christians killed
5.Jump up ^ Емельянов Н.Е. Сколько репрессированных в России пострадали за Христа?
6.^ Jump up to: a b http://countrystudies.us/albania/56.htm
7.Jump up ^ World Christian trends, AD 30-AD 2200, p.230-246 Tables 4-10 By David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, Christopher R. Guidry, Peter F. Crossing
8.Jump up ^ Khmer Rouge: Christian baptism after massacres
9.Jump up ^ D. Hume, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, 1779.
10.Jump up ^ https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine
11.Jump up ^ Marx, K. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Collected Works, v. 3. New York.
12.Jump up ^ "Dewey felt that science alone contributed to 'human good,' which he defined exclusively in naturalistic terms. He rejected religion and metaphysics as valid supports for moral and social values, and felt that success of the scientific method presupposed the destruction of old knowledge before the new could be created. ... (Dewey, 1929, pp. 95, 145) "William Adrian, TRUTH, FREEDOM AND (DIS)ORDER IN THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Christian Higher Education', 4:2, 145-154
13.Jump up ^ "I think all the great religions of the world – Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism – both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true. ... I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue." Bertrand Russell in "My Religious Reminiscences" (1957), reprinted in The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell [1]
14.Jump up ^ Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful! The Guardian, 2001-10-11 "Has the world changed?." The Guardian. Accessed 2006-01-29.
15.Jump up ^ Grimes, William (16 December 2011). "Christopher Hitchens, Polemicist Who Slashed All, Freely, Dies at 62". New York Times. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
16.Jump up ^ "[T]he Bible, contrary to what a majority of Americans apparently believe, is far from a source of higher moral values. Religions have given us stonings, witch-burnings, crusades, inquisitions, jihads, fatwas, suicide bombers, gay-bashers, abortion-clinic gunmen, and mothers who drown their sons so they can happily be united in heaven." The Evolutionary Psychology of Religion, presentation by Steven Pinker to the annual meeting of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Madison, Wisconsin, October 29, 2004, on receipt of “The Emperor’s New Clothes Award.”
17.Jump up ^ "We desperately need a public discourse that encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith.", S. Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 2006.
18.Jump up ^ "Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about the religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class."Lenin, V. I. "About the attitude of the working party toward the religion". Collected works, v. 17, p.41. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
19.Jump up ^ http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/anti_rel.html
20.Jump up ^ Grossman, J. D. (1973). "Khrushchev's Anti-Religious Policy and the Campaign of 1954". Soviet Studies 24 (3): 374–386. doi:10.1080/09668137308410870. JSTOR 150643.
21.Jump up ^ http://www.randi.org/
22.Jump up ^ http://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html
23.Jump up ^ "I'm anti-religious ... It's all a big lie ... I have such a huge dislike [of] the miserable record of religion." The Guardian, 2005-12-14 " The Guardian. 'It no longer feels a great injustice that I have to die'
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Religion
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Philosophy of religion
Portal
Category
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Theology
Atheism template.svgAtheism portal
Categories: Antireligion
Irreligion
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Български
Español
فارسی
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
日本語
Polski
Português
Română
Scots
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 28 April 2015, at 01:33.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion
Antireligion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See also: Religious discrimination and Antitheism
Part of a series on
Irreligion
"αθεοι" (atheoi), Greek for "those without god", as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians on the third-century papyrus known as "Papyrus 46"
Irreligion[show]
Atheism[show]
Agnosticism[show]
Nontheism[show]
Naturalism[show]
People[show]
Books[show]
Secularist organizations[show]
Related topics[show]
Irreligion by country
v ·
t ·
e
Antireligion is opposition to religion. Antireligion is distinct from atheism (the absence of a belief in deities) and antitheism (an opposition to belief in deities), although antireligionists may be atheists or antitheists. The term may be used to describe opposition to organized religion, or to describe a broader opposition to any form of belief in the supernatural or the divine.
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Notable anti-religious people
3 See also
4 References
History[edit]
Unbalanced scales.svg
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2013)
According to historian Michael Burleigh, antireligion found its first mass expression in revolutionary France in response to organised resistance to "organised ... irreligion...an 'anti-clerical' and self-styled 'non-religious' state."[1]
The Soviet Union directed antireligious campaigns at all faiths,[2] including Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Shamanist religions. In the 1930s, during the Stalinist period, the government destroyed church buildings or put them into secular use (as museums of religion and atheism, clubs or storage facilities), executed clergy, prohibited the publication of most religious material and persecuted some members of religious groups.[2][3] Less violent attempts to reduce or eliminate the influence of religion in society were also carried out at other times in Soviet history. For instance, it was usually necessary to be an atheist in order to acquire any important political position or any prestigious scientific job; thus many people became atheists in order to advance their careers. Different sources disagree on the results of all this, with some claiming the death of 21 million Russian Orthodox Christians by the Soviet government, not including other religious groups or persecutions without killings,[4] and other sources stating that only up to 500,000 Russian Orthodox Christians were persecuted by the Soviet government, not including other religious groups.[5]
The atheist state of the People's Republic of Albania had an objective for the eventual destruction of all religion in Albania, including a constitutional ban on religious activity and propaganda.[6] The government nationalised most property of religious institutions and used it for non-religious purposes. Religious literature was banned. Many clergy and theists were tried, tortured, and executed. All foreign Roman Catholic clergy were expelled in 1946.[6][7] Albania was the only country that ever officially banned religion.
The Khmer Rouge attempted to eliminate Cambodia's cultural heritage, including its religions. In the process, its acolytes killed nearly 1.7 million people.[8]
Notable anti-religious people[edit]
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
IntellectualsDavid Hume (1711-1776), Scottish agnostic philosopher, known for his skepticism, who wrote that human reason is wholly inadequate to make any assumptions about the divine, whether through a priori reasoning or observation of nature.[9]
Thomas Paine (1737–1809), English-American author and deist who wrote a scathing critique on religion in the The Age of Reason (1793-4). "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish [i.e. Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit".[10]
Karl Marx (1818–1883), German philosopher, social scientist, socialist. He is well known for his anti-religious views. He called religion "the opium of the people".[11]
John Dewey (1859–1952), an American pragmatist philosopher, who believed neither religion nor metaphysics could provide legitimate moral or social values, though scientific empiricism could (see science of morality).[12]
Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), British logician and philosopher who believed that authentic philosophy could only be pursued given an atheistic foundation of "unyielding despair". In 1948, he famously debated the Jesuit priest and philosophical historian Father Frederick Copleston on the existence of God.[13]
Richard Dawkins (born 1941), English biologist, one of the "four horsemen" of New Atheism. He wrote The God Delusion, criticizing belief in the divine, in 2006.[14]
Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011), British-American author and journalist, wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything in 2007[15]
Steven Pinker (born 1954), Canadian-American cognitive scientist who believes religion incites violence.[16]
Sam Harris (born 1967), American author and neuroscientist, who argues that religious moderation provides cover for dangerous fundamentalism.[17]
PZ Myers (born 1957), American biologist.
Phil Zuckerman (born 1969), American sociologist.
PoliticiansVladimir Lenin, Soviet leader from 1917 until 1924, who, like most Marxists, believed all religions to be "the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class"[18]
Joseph Stalin, Soviet leader between 1924 to 1953
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, Tamil politician, between 1938-73, who propagated the principles of rationalism, self-respect, women’s rights and eradication of caste in South India.
Enver Hoxha, Albanian communist leader between 1944 and 1985
Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet leader in 1953-64, who initiated, among other measures,[19][20] the 1958-1964 Soviet anti-religious campaign.
OthersBill Maher, who wrote and starred in Religulous, a 2008 documentary criticizing and mocking religion.
Jim Jefferies, Australian comedian
Marcus Brigstocke, British comedian
George Carlin, American comedian
James Randi, former magician, professional "debunker" of psychics, outspoken atheist and founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation.[21][22]
Philip Roth, contemporary Jewish-American novelist.[23]
See also[edit]
Anti-Catholicism
Anti-Christian sentiment
Anti-clericalism
Anti-Islamism, as distinct from Islamophobia
Anti-Judaism
Anti-Mormonism
Anti-Protestantism
Anti-Buddhism
Antitheism
Conflict thesis
Criticism of Islam
Discrimination against atheists
Evidentialism
Faith and rationality
Freethought
New Atheism
Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
Persecution of Christians
Relationship between religion and science
Religious discrimination against Neopagans
Religious intolerance
Religious persecution
Religious segregation
State atheism
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Michael Burleigh Earthly Powers p 96-97 ISBN 0-00-719572-9
2.^ Jump up to: a b http://countrystudies.us/russia/38.htm
3.Jump up ^ Timasheff, N. S. (1941). "The Church in the Soviet Union 1917 - 1941". Russian Review 1 (1): 20–30. doi:10.2307/125428. JSTOR 125428.
4.Jump up ^ World Christian trends, AD 30-AD 2200, p.230-246 Tables 4-5 & 4-10 By David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, Christopher R. Guidry, Peter F. Crossing NOTE: They define 'martyr' on p235 as only including christians killed for faith and excluding other christians killed
5.Jump up ^ Емельянов Н.Е. Сколько репрессированных в России пострадали за Христа?
6.^ Jump up to: a b http://countrystudies.us/albania/56.htm
7.Jump up ^ World Christian trends, AD 30-AD 2200, p.230-246 Tables 4-10 By David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, Christopher R. Guidry, Peter F. Crossing
8.Jump up ^ Khmer Rouge: Christian baptism after massacres
9.Jump up ^ D. Hume, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, 1779.
10.Jump up ^ https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine
11.Jump up ^ Marx, K. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Collected Works, v. 3. New York.
12.Jump up ^ "Dewey felt that science alone contributed to 'human good,' which he defined exclusively in naturalistic terms. He rejected religion and metaphysics as valid supports for moral and social values, and felt that success of the scientific method presupposed the destruction of old knowledge before the new could be created. ... (Dewey, 1929, pp. 95, 145) "William Adrian, TRUTH, FREEDOM AND (DIS)ORDER IN THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Christian Higher Education', 4:2, 145-154
13.Jump up ^ "I think all the great religions of the world – Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism – both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true. ... I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue." Bertrand Russell in "My Religious Reminiscences" (1957), reprinted in The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell [1]
14.Jump up ^ Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful! The Guardian, 2001-10-11 "Has the world changed?." The Guardian. Accessed 2006-01-29.
15.Jump up ^ Grimes, William (16 December 2011). "Christopher Hitchens, Polemicist Who Slashed All, Freely, Dies at 62". New York Times. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
16.Jump up ^ "[T]he Bible, contrary to what a majority of Americans apparently believe, is far from a source of higher moral values. Religions have given us stonings, witch-burnings, crusades, inquisitions, jihads, fatwas, suicide bombers, gay-bashers, abortion-clinic gunmen, and mothers who drown their sons so they can happily be united in heaven." The Evolutionary Psychology of Religion, presentation by Steven Pinker to the annual meeting of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Madison, Wisconsin, October 29, 2004, on receipt of “The Emperor’s New Clothes Award.”
17.Jump up ^ "We desperately need a public discourse that encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith.", S. Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 2006.
18.Jump up ^ "Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about the religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class."Lenin, V. I. "About the attitude of the working party toward the religion". Collected works, v. 17, p.41. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
19.Jump up ^ http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/anti_rel.html
20.Jump up ^ Grossman, J. D. (1973). "Khrushchev's Anti-Religious Policy and the Campaign of 1954". Soviet Studies 24 (3): 374–386. doi:10.1080/09668137308410870. JSTOR 150643.
21.Jump up ^ http://www.randi.org/
22.Jump up ^ http://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html
23.Jump up ^ "I'm anti-religious ... It's all a big lie ... I have such a huge dislike [of] the miserable record of religion." The Guardian, 2005-12-14 " The Guardian. 'It no longer feels a great injustice that I have to die'
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Religion
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Philosophy of religion
Portal
Category
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Theology
Atheism template.svgAtheism portal
Categories: Antireligion
Irreligion
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Български
Español
فارسی
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
日本語
Polski
Português
Română
Scots
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 28 April 2015, at 01:33.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion
Religious discrimination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See also: Antireligion and Antitheism
Freedom of religion
Concepts[show]
Status by country[show]
Religious persecution[show]
Religion portal
v ·
t ·
e
Part of a series on
Discrimination
General forms[show]
Specific forms
Social[show]
Manifestations[show]
Policies[show]
Other forms[show]
Countermeasures[show]
Related topics[show]
Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
t ·
e
Religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe. Specifically, it is when adherents of different religions (or denominations) are treated unequally, either before the law or in institutional settings such as employment or housing.
Religious discrimination is related to religious persecution, the most extreme forms of which would include instances in which people have been executed for beliefs perceived to be heretic. Laws which only carry light punishments are described as mild forms of religious persecution or as religious discrimination.
Even in societies where freedom of religion is a constitutional right, sometimes adherents of religious minorities voice concerns about religious discrimination against them. Insofar as legal policies are concerned, cases that are perceived as religious discrimination might be the result of an interference of the religious sphere with other spheres of the public that are regulated by law (and not aimed specifically against a religious minority).[citation needed]
Contents [hide]
1 Religious discrimination in Western countries 1.1 United States
1.2 Canada
1.3 Germany
1.4 Greece
1.5 Mexico
2 In the Middle East 2.1 Iraq
2.2 Turkey
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
Religious discrimination in Western countries[edit]
United States[edit]
Main article: Religious discrimination in the United States
In a 1979 consultation on the issue, the United States Commission on Civil Rights defined religious discrimination in relation to the civil rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whereas religious civil liberties, such as the right to hold or not to hold a religious belief, are essential for Freedom of Religion (in the United States secured by the First Amendment), religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied "the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom."[1]
However, cases of religious discrimination might also be the result of an interference of the religious sphere with other spheres of the public that are regulated by law. Although e.g. in the United States the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", in Reynolds v. United States the U.S. supreme court decided that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment. In this specific case a law against bigamy was not considered to be discriminating against Mormons, who stopped practicing Polygamy in 1890.[2]
Canada[edit]
In Canada, during 1995-1998 Newfoundland had only Christian schools (four of them, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Seventh-day Adventist, and inter-denominational (Anglican, Salvation Army and United Church)). The right to organize publicly supported religious schools was only given to certain Christian denominations, thus tax money used to support a selected group of Christian denominations. The denominational schools could also refuse admission of a student or the hiring of a qualified teacher on purely religious grounds. Quebec has used two school systems, one Protestant and the other Roman Catholic, but it seems this system will be replaced with two secular school systems: one French and the other English.[3]
Canadian faith based university, Trinity Western University is currently facing a challenge from members of the legal and LGBT community to its freedom to educate students in a private university context while holding certain religious values.[4] TWU faced a similar battle in 2001 (Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers) where the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that TWU was capable to teach professional disciplines.[5]
Germany[edit]
Main article: Scientology in Germany
Scientologists in Germany face specific political and economic restrictions. They are barred from membership in some major political parties, and businesses and other employers use so-called "sect filters" to expose a prospective business partner's or employee's association with the organization. German federal and state interior ministers started a process aimed at banning Scientology in late 2007, but abandoned the initiative a year later, finding insufficient legal grounds. Despite this, polls suggest that most Germans favor banning Scientology altogether. The U.S. government has repeatedly raised concerns over discriminatory practices directed at individual Scientologists.[6][7][8]
Greece[edit]
In Greece since the independence from the Muslim Ottomans rule in the 19th century, the Greek Orthodox Church has been given privileged status and only the Greek Orthodox church, Roman Catholic, some Protestant churches, Judaism and Islam are recognized religions. The Muslim minority alleges that Greece persistently and systematically discriminates against Muslims.[9][10]
Mexico[edit]
According to a Human Rights Practices report by the U.S. State Department on Mexico note that "some local officials infringe on religious freedom, especially in the south". There is conflict between Catholic/Mayan syncretists and Protestant evangelicals in the Chiapas region.[11][12][13]
In the Middle East[edit]
Iraq[edit]
Assyrian Christians have suffered from discrimination since Saddam Hussein's Arabization policies in the 1980s, with the latest instance of discrimination being the ISIS invasion of the Nineveh plains and Mosul, where tens of thousands have been forced to flee, and multiple Christian sites have been destroyed. The number of Christians in Iraq overall since the 2003 invasion has dropped by around 60%, from 800,000 to 300,000, and in 1987, that number was around 1.4 million.[14] The 2014 invasion by ISIS has likely degraded that number further.
Sunni Muslims have also fallen victim to persecution from the majority Shia population of Iraq, which may have led to the ISIS invasions.
Turkey[edit]
This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (May 2015)
Religious discrimination in Turkey has one of the worst track records in the Middle East, with the Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian Genocides all occurring here. Allegations by some indicate that Turkey may support ISIS, a terrorist organization which has taken over swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria. Although Turkey's support for ISIS can't be proven, in one instance they opened their border and allowed Al Nusra terrorists, a radical Islamic group that controls land in Syria, to enter through their border, and then into the majority Armenian Christian town of Kessab(which is right on the Turkish–Syrian border)—Al Nusra raided the whole town, and took those who didn't flee as prisoners with them to the Turkish city of Iskenderun.[15][16]
See also[edit]
GeneralSecularization
Discrimination
Civil rights
Intersectionality
Islamic religious police
OUT Campaign
List of anti-discrimination acts
Religious intolerance
SpecificAnti-Catholicism
Anti-Protestantism
Anti-Christian sentiment
Anti-clericalism
Anti-Judaism
Anti-Semitism
Anti-Islamism, not to be confused with Islamophobia
Islamophobia
Anti-cult movement, people and groups who oppose cults and new religious movements
Anti-Mormon
Anti-Hinduism
Discrimination against atheists
Religious discrimination against Neopagans
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1979: II
2.Jump up ^ "Polygamy". Mormonnewsroom.org. 2007-07-24. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
3.Jump up ^ "The Constitution Since Patriation". Parl.gc.ca. 2006-10-03. Archived from the original on 2006-10-03. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
4.Jump up ^ Challenges to TWU law school application.
5.Jump up ^ Legal decision on TWU
6.Jump up ^ Barber (1997-01-30)
7.Jump up ^ Kent (2001), pp. 3, 12–13 |
8.Jump up ^ U.S. Department of State (1999)
9.Jump up ^ "Turkish Minority Rights Violated in Greece". Hrw.org. 1999-01-08. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
10.Jump up ^ "The Turks of Western Thrace". Hrw.org. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
11.Jump up ^ "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices". State.gov. 2002-03-04. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
12.Jump up ^ The requested URL /articles/other/mexico.shtml was not found on this server.[dead link]
13.Jump up ^ "U.S. Department of State Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 1999: Mexico". State.gov. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
14.Jump up ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.htmlz
15.Jump up ^ http://www.armradio.am/en/2015/03/21/kessab-armenians-in-diaspora-remember-their-quaint-town-in-syria/
16.Jump up ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11324061/Syria-video-dispatch-Kessab-churches-burned-and-graves-destroyed.html
References[edit]
Stokes, DaShanne. (In Press) Legalized Segregation and the Denial of Religious Freedom[dead link]
Stokes, DaShanne. (2001). "Sage, Sweetgrass, and the First Amendment." The Chronicle of Higher Education. May 18, 2001, sec. 2: B16.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1979: Religious discrimination. A neglected issue. A consultation sponsored by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Washington D.C., April 9–10, 1979
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Discrimination
Category
Portal
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Religious persecution and discrimination
Categories: Prejudices
Religious discrimination
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
فارسی
עברית
Polski
Русский
Suomi
Українська
Edit links
This page was last modified on 22 May 2015, at 05:46.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_discrimination
Religious discrimination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See also: Antireligion and Antitheism
Freedom of religion
Concepts[show]
Status by country[show]
Religious persecution[show]
Religion portal
v ·
t ·
e
Part of a series on
Discrimination
General forms[show]
Specific forms
Social[show]
Manifestations[show]
Policies[show]
Other forms[show]
Countermeasures[show]
Related topics[show]
Portal icon Discrimination portal
v ·
t ·
e
Religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe. Specifically, it is when adherents of different religions (or denominations) are treated unequally, either before the law or in institutional settings such as employment or housing.
Religious discrimination is related to religious persecution, the most extreme forms of which would include instances in which people have been executed for beliefs perceived to be heretic. Laws which only carry light punishments are described as mild forms of religious persecution or as religious discrimination.
Even in societies where freedom of religion is a constitutional right, sometimes adherents of religious minorities voice concerns about religious discrimination against them. Insofar as legal policies are concerned, cases that are perceived as religious discrimination might be the result of an interference of the religious sphere with other spheres of the public that are regulated by law (and not aimed specifically against a religious minority).[citation needed]
Contents [hide]
1 Religious discrimination in Western countries 1.1 United States
1.2 Canada
1.3 Germany
1.4 Greece
1.5 Mexico
2 In the Middle East 2.1 Iraq
2.2 Turkey
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
Religious discrimination in Western countries[edit]
United States[edit]
Main article: Religious discrimination in the United States
In a 1979 consultation on the issue, the United States Commission on Civil Rights defined religious discrimination in relation to the civil rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whereas religious civil liberties, such as the right to hold or not to hold a religious belief, are essential for Freedom of Religion (in the United States secured by the First Amendment), religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied "the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom."[1]
However, cases of religious discrimination might also be the result of an interference of the religious sphere with other spheres of the public that are regulated by law. Although e.g. in the United States the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", in Reynolds v. United States the U.S. supreme court decided that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment. In this specific case a law against bigamy was not considered to be discriminating against Mormons, who stopped practicing Polygamy in 1890.[2]
Canada[edit]
In Canada, during 1995-1998 Newfoundland had only Christian schools (four of them, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Seventh-day Adventist, and inter-denominational (Anglican, Salvation Army and United Church)). The right to organize publicly supported religious schools was only given to certain Christian denominations, thus tax money used to support a selected group of Christian denominations. The denominational schools could also refuse admission of a student or the hiring of a qualified teacher on purely religious grounds. Quebec has used two school systems, one Protestant and the other Roman Catholic, but it seems this system will be replaced with two secular school systems: one French and the other English.[3]
Canadian faith based university, Trinity Western University is currently facing a challenge from members of the legal and LGBT community to its freedom to educate students in a private university context while holding certain religious values.[4] TWU faced a similar battle in 2001 (Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers) where the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that TWU was capable to teach professional disciplines.[5]
Germany[edit]
Main article: Scientology in Germany
Scientologists in Germany face specific political and economic restrictions. They are barred from membership in some major political parties, and businesses and other employers use so-called "sect filters" to expose a prospective business partner's or employee's association with the organization. German federal and state interior ministers started a process aimed at banning Scientology in late 2007, but abandoned the initiative a year later, finding insufficient legal grounds. Despite this, polls suggest that most Germans favor banning Scientology altogether. The U.S. government has repeatedly raised concerns over discriminatory practices directed at individual Scientologists.[6][7][8]
Greece[edit]
In Greece since the independence from the Muslim Ottomans rule in the 19th century, the Greek Orthodox Church has been given privileged status and only the Greek Orthodox church, Roman Catholic, some Protestant churches, Judaism and Islam are recognized religions. The Muslim minority alleges that Greece persistently and systematically discriminates against Muslims.[9][10]
Mexico[edit]
According to a Human Rights Practices report by the U.S. State Department on Mexico note that "some local officials infringe on religious freedom, especially in the south". There is conflict between Catholic/Mayan syncretists and Protestant evangelicals in the Chiapas region.[11][12][13]
In the Middle East[edit]
Iraq[edit]
Assyrian Christians have suffered from discrimination since Saddam Hussein's Arabization policies in the 1980s, with the latest instance of discrimination being the ISIS invasion of the Nineveh plains and Mosul, where tens of thousands have been forced to flee, and multiple Christian sites have been destroyed. The number of Christians in Iraq overall since the 2003 invasion has dropped by around 60%, from 800,000 to 300,000, and in 1987, that number was around 1.4 million.[14] The 2014 invasion by ISIS has likely degraded that number further.
Sunni Muslims have also fallen victim to persecution from the majority Shia population of Iraq, which may have led to the ISIS invasions.
Turkey[edit]
This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (May 2015)
Religious discrimination in Turkey has one of the worst track records in the Middle East, with the Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian Genocides all occurring here. Allegations by some indicate that Turkey may support ISIS, a terrorist organization which has taken over swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria. Although Turkey's support for ISIS can't be proven, in one instance they opened their border and allowed Al Nusra terrorists, a radical Islamic group that controls land in Syria, to enter through their border, and then into the majority Armenian Christian town of Kessab(which is right on the Turkish–Syrian border)—Al Nusra raided the whole town, and took those who didn't flee as prisoners with them to the Turkish city of Iskenderun.[15][16]
See also[edit]
GeneralSecularization
Discrimination
Civil rights
Intersectionality
Islamic religious police
OUT Campaign
List of anti-discrimination acts
Religious intolerance
SpecificAnti-Catholicism
Anti-Protestantism
Anti-Christian sentiment
Anti-clericalism
Anti-Judaism
Anti-Semitism
Anti-Islamism, not to be confused with Islamophobia
Islamophobia
Anti-cult movement, people and groups who oppose cults and new religious movements
Anti-Mormon
Anti-Hinduism
Discrimination against atheists
Religious discrimination against Neopagans
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1979: II
2.Jump up ^ "Polygamy". Mormonnewsroom.org. 2007-07-24. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
3.Jump up ^ "The Constitution Since Patriation". Parl.gc.ca. 2006-10-03. Archived from the original on 2006-10-03. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
4.Jump up ^ Challenges to TWU law school application.
5.Jump up ^ Legal decision on TWU
6.Jump up ^ Barber (1997-01-30)
7.Jump up ^ Kent (2001), pp. 3, 12–13 |
8.Jump up ^ U.S. Department of State (1999)
9.Jump up ^ "Turkish Minority Rights Violated in Greece". Hrw.org. 1999-01-08. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
10.Jump up ^ "The Turks of Western Thrace". Hrw.org. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
11.Jump up ^ "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices". State.gov. 2002-03-04. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
12.Jump up ^ The requested URL /articles/other/mexico.shtml was not found on this server.[dead link]
13.Jump up ^ "U.S. Department of State Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 1999: Mexico". State.gov. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
14.Jump up ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.htmlz
15.Jump up ^ http://www.armradio.am/en/2015/03/21/kessab-armenians-in-diaspora-remember-their-quaint-town-in-syria/
16.Jump up ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11324061/Syria-video-dispatch-Kessab-churches-burned-and-graves-destroyed.html
References[edit]
Stokes, DaShanne. (In Press) Legalized Segregation and the Denial of Religious Freedom[dead link]
Stokes, DaShanne. (2001). "Sage, Sweetgrass, and the First Amendment." The Chronicle of Higher Education. May 18, 2001, sec. 2: B16.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1979: Religious discrimination. A neglected issue. A consultation sponsored by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Washington D.C., April 9–10, 1979
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Discrimination
Category
Portal
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Religious persecution and discrimination
Categories: Prejudices
Religious discrimination
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
فارسی
עברית
Polski
Русский
Suomi
Українська
Edit links
This page was last modified on 22 May 2015, at 05:46.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_discrimination
Historical Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In the 21st century, the third quest for the historical Jesus witnessed a fragmentation of the scholarly portraits of Jesus after which no unified picture of Jesus could be attained at all.[1][2]
The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods", in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')".[3] It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.[4][5][6]
Virtually all scholars write on the subject accept that Jesus existed,[7][8][9][10] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13][14] Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.[15][16] Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, whose example he may have followed, and after John was executed, began his own preaching in Galilee for only about two to three years prior to his death. He preached the salvation, cleansing from sins, and the Kingdom of God, using parables with startling imagery, and was said to be a teacher and a faith healer.[17] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[18] He sent his apostles out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God.[19] Later, he traveled to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[15] It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem.[15] The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his brother James the Just and the apostles who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus.[20] It developed into Early Christianity (see also List of events in early Christianity).
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[21][22] The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[1] These portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change,[23][24] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[1][2][25] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[23][24][26]
A number of scholars have criticized the various approaches used in the study of the historical Jesus—on one hand for the lack of rigor in research methods, on the other for being driven by "specific agendas" that interpret ancient sources to fit specific goals.[27][28][29] By the 21st century the "maximalist" approaches of the 19th century which accepted all the gospels and the "minimalist" trends of the early 20th century which totally rejected them were abandoned and scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.[30][31][32]
Part of a series on
Jesus
Jesus in Christianity[show]
Jesus in Islam[show]
Background[show]
Jesus in history[show]
Perspectives on Jesus[show]
Jesus in culture[show]
Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Islam portal
v ·
t ·
e
Contents [hide]
1 Historical elements 1.1 Existence 1.1.1 Evidence of Jesus
1.2 Portraits of the historical Jesus
2 Ministry of Jesus 2.1 Works and miracles
2.2 Jesus as divine 2.2.1 Messiah
2.2.2 Son of God
2.2.3 Son of Man
2.2.4 Other depictions
2.3 Jesus and John the Baptist
2.4 Ministry and teachings 2.4.1 Length of ministry
2.4.2 Parables and paradoxes
2.4.3 Eschatology
2.4.4 Laconic sage
2.4.5 Table fellowship
2.4.6 Disciples
2.4.7 Asceticism
2.5 Jerusalem 2.5.1 Entrance to Jerusalem
2.5.2 Temple disturbance
2.6 Crucifixion
2.7 Burial and Empty Tomb
2.8 Resurrection appearances
3 Methods of research
4 Criticism of Jesus research methods 4.1 Theological bias
4.2 Lack of methodological soundness
4.3 Scarcity of sources
4.4 Myth theory
5 See also
6 Notes
7 References
8 External links
Historical elements[edit]
Existence[edit]
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][33][34][35] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[36][37] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[14] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[14] and historians tend to look upon supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[38]
Evidence of Jesus[edit]
Main articles: Historical reliability of the Gospels, Sources for the historicity of Jesus, Josephus on Jesus and Tacitus on Christ
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All the sources we have are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[39]
In conjunction with biblical sources, three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources have been used in the historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[40] These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus.[40][41]
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.[42][43] Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.[44][45][46][47]
Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[48] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe[49] and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,[50] although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various grounds.[49][51][52][53][54][55][55][56][57]
Other considerations outside Christendom are the possible mentions of Jesus in the Talmud. The Talmud speaks in some detail of the conduct of criminal cases of Israel and gathered in one place from 200-500 C.E. "On the eve of the Passover Yeshua was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy." The first date of the Sanhedrin judiciary council being recorded as functioning is 57 B.C.E.[58]
Portraits of the historical Jesus[edit]
Main articles: Portraits of the historical Jesus and Quest for the historical Jesus
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[21][22] The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[1] These portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change,[23][24] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[1][2][25] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[23][24][26]
Contemporary scholarship, representing the "third quest," places Jesus firmly in the Jewish tradition.[59] Leading scholars in the "third quest" include E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Gerd Theissen, Christoph Burchard, and John Dominic Crossan.[59] Jesus is seen as the founder of, in the words of E. P. Sanders, a '"renewal movement within Judaism."[59] This scholarship suggests a continuity between Jesus' life as a wandering charismatic and the same lifestyle carried forward by followers after his death.[59] The main criterion used to discern historical details in the "third quest" is the criterion of plausibility, relative to Jesus' Jewish context and to his influence on Christianity.[59] The main disagreement in contemporary research is whether Jesus was apocalyptic.[59] Most scholars conclude that he was an apocalyptic preacher, like John the Baptist and the apostle Paul.[59] In contrast, certain prominent North American scholars, such as Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan, advocate for a non-eschatological Jesus, one who is more of a Cynic sage than an apocalyptic preacher.[59]
Ministry of Jesus[edit]
Works and miracles[edit]
Early Christian image of the Good Shepherd. Fourth century.
Jesus is said to have performed various miracles in the course of his ministry. These mostly consist of miraculous healing, exorcisms and dominion over other things in nature besides people.
As Albert Schweitzer showed in his Quest of the Historical Jesus, in the early 19th century, debate about the "Historical Jesus" centered on the credibility of the miracle reports. Early 19th century scholars offered three types of explanation for these miracle stories: they were regarded as supernatural events, or were "rationalized" (e.g. by Paulus), or were regarded as mythical (e.g. by Strauss).[citation needed]
Scholars in both Christian and secular traditions continue to debate how the reports of Jesus' miracles should be construed. The Christian Gospels states that Jesus has God's authoritarian power over nature, life and death, but naturalistic historians, following Strauss, generally choose either to see these stories as legend or allegory, or, for some of the miracles they follow the rationalizing method. For example, the healings and exorcisms are sometimes attributed to the placebo effect.[citation needed]
Jesus as divine[edit]
Jesus was a charismatic preacher who taught the principles of salvation, everlasting life, and the Kingdom of God.[18] Scholars see him as accepting a divine role in the approaching apocalypse as the divine king.[60] Jesus' use of three important terms: Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man, reveals his understanding of his divine role.[18][60]
Messiah[edit]
Main article: Messiah
In the Hebrew Bible, three classes of people are identified as "anointed," that is, "Messiahs": prophets, priests, and kings.[60] In Jesus' time, the term Messiah was used in different ways, and no one can be sure how Jesus would even have meant it if he had accepted the term.[60] Though Messianic expectations in general centered on the King Messiah, the Essenes expected both a kingly and a priestly figure in their eschatology.[citation needed]
The Jews of Jesus' time waited expectantly for a divine redeemer who would restore Israel, which suffered under Roman rule. John the Baptist was apparently waiting for one greater than himself, an apocalyptic figure.[61] Christian scripture and faith acclaim Jesus as this "Messiah" ("anointed one," "Christ").
Son of God[edit]
Main article: Son of God
Paul describes God as declaring Jesus to be the Son of God by raising him from the dead, and Sanders argues Mark portrays God as adopting Jesus as his son at his baptism,[60] although many others do not accept this interpretation of Mark.[62] Sanders argues that for Jesus to be hailed as the Son of God does not mean that he is literally God's offspring.[60] Rather, it indicates a very high designation, one who stands in a special relation to God.[60]
In the synoptic Gospels, the being of Jesus as "Son of God" corresponds exactly to the typical Hasidean from Galilee, a "pious" holy man that by God's intervention performs miracles and exorcisms.[63][64]
Son of Man[edit]
Main article: Son of Man
The most literal translation here is "Son of Humanity", or "human being". Jesus uses "Son of Man" to mean sometimes "I" or a mortal in general, sometimes a divine figure destined to suffer, and sometimes a heavenly figure of judgment soon to arrive. Jesus usage of son of man in the first way is historical but without divine claim. The Son of Man as one destined to suffer seems to be, according to some, a Christian invention that does not go back to Jesus, and it is not clear whether Jesus meant himself when he spoke of the divine judge.[60] These three uses do not appear together, such as the Son of Man who suffers and returns.[60] Others maintain, that Jesus' use of this phrase, illustrates Jesus' self understanding as the divine representative of God.[65]
Other depictions[edit]
The title Logos, identifying Jesus as the divine word, first appears in the Gospel of John, written c. 90-100.[66]
Raymond E. Brown concluded that the earliest Christians did not call Jesus, "God".[67] New Testament scholars broadly agree that Jesus did not make any implicit claims to be God.[68] See also Divinity of Jesus and Nontrinitarianism.
Pinchas Lapide sees Jesus as a rabbi in the Hasid tradition of Hillel the Elder, Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa.[citation needed]
The gospels and Christian tradition depict Jesus as being executed at the insistence of Jewish leaders, who considered his claims to divinity to be blasphemous, see also Responsibility for the death of Jesus. Historically, Jesus seems instead to have been executed as a potential source of unrest.[18][69][70]
Jesus and John the Baptist[edit]
Main article: John the Baptist
Judean hills of Israel
Jesus began preaching, teaching, and healing after he was baptized by John the Baptist, an apocalyptic ascetic preacher who called on Jews to repent.
Jesus was apparently a follower of John, a populist and activist prophet who looked forward to divine deliverance of the Jewish homeland from the Romans.[71] John was a major religious figure, whose movement was probably larger than Jesus' own.[72] Herod Antipas had John executed as a threat to his power.[72] In a saying thought to have been originally recorded in Q,[73] the historical Jesus defended John shortly after John's death.[74]
John's followers formed a movement that continued after his death alongside Jesus' own following.[72] John's followers apparently believed that John might have risen from the dead,[75][dubious – discuss] an expectation that may have influenced the expectations of Jesus' followers after his own execution.[72] Some of Jesus' followers were former followers of John the Baptist.[72] Fasting and baptism, elements of John's preaching, may have entered early Christian practice as John's followers joined the movement.[72]
John Dominic Crossan portrays Jesus as rejecting John's apocalyptic eschatology in favor of a sapiential eschatology, in which cultural transformation results from humans' own actions, rather than from God's intervention.[19]
Historians consider Jesus' baptism by John to be historical, an event that early Christians would not have included in their Gospels in the absence of a "firm report".[76] Like Jesus, John and his execution are mentioned by Josephus.[72]
John the Baptist's prominence in both the Gospels and Josephus suggests that he may have been more popular than Jesus in his lifetime; also, Jesus' mission does not begin until after his baptism by John. Fredriksen suggests that it was only after Jesus' death that Jesus emerged as more influential than John. Accordingly, the Gospels project Jesus's posthumous importance back to his lifetime. One way Fredriksen believes this was accomplished was by minimizing John's importance by having John resist baptizing Jesus (Matthew), by referring to the baptism in passing (Luke), or by asserting Jesus's superiority (John).[citation needed]
Scholars posit that Jesus may have been a direct follower in John the Baptist's movement. Prominent Historical Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan suggests that John the Baptist may have been killed for political reasons, not necessarily the personal grudge given in Mark's gospel.[77] Going into the desert and baptising in the Jordan suggests that John and his followers were purifying themselves for what they believed was God's imminent deliverance. This was reminiscent of such a crossing of the Jordan after the Exodus (see Book of Joshua), leading into the promised land of their deliverance from oppression. Jesus' teachings would later diverge from John's apocalyptic vision (though it depends which scholarly view is adopted; according to Ehrman or Sanders apocalyptic vision was the core of Jesus' teaching) which warned of "the wrath to come," as "the axe is laid to the root of the trees" and those who do not bear "good fruit" are "cut down and thrown into the fire." (Luke 3:7-9) Though John's teachings remained visible in those of Jesus, Jesus would emphasize the Kingdom of God not as imminent, but as already present and manifest through the movement's communal commitment to a relationship of equality among all members, and living by the laws of divine justice.[citation needed] All four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified at the requested of the Jewish Sanhedrin by Pontius Pilate.[citation needed] Crucifixion was the penalty for criminals, robbers, traitors, and political insurrection, used as a symbol of Rome's absolute authority - those who stood against Rome were utterly annihilated.[citation needed]
Ministry and teachings[edit]
Main article: Ministry of Jesus
The synoptic Gospels agree that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, went to the River Jordan to meet and be baptised by the prophet John (Yohannan) the Baptist, and shortly after began healing and preaching to villagers and fishermen around the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a freshwater lake). Although there were many Phoenician, Hellenistic, and Roman cities nearby (e.g. Gesara and Gadara; Sidon and Tyre; Sepphoris and Tiberias), there is only one account of Jesus healing someone in the region of the Gadarenes found in the three synoptic Gospels (the demon called Legion), and another when he healed a Syro-Phoenician girl in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon.[78] Otherwise, there is no record of Jesus having spent any significant amount of time in Gentile towns.[citation needed] The center of his work was Capernaum, a small town (about 500 by 350 meters, with a population of 1,500-2,000) where, according to the Gospels, he appeared at the town's synagogue (a non-sacred meeting house where Jews would often gather on the Sabbath to study the Torah), healed a paralytic, and continued seeking disciples.[citation needed]
Once Jesus established a following (although there are debates over the number of followers), he moved towards the Davidic capital of the United Monarchy, the city of Jerusalem.
Length of ministry[edit]
Historians do not know how long Jesus preached. The synoptic Gospels suggest a period of up to one year.[79] The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers,[80] Jesus' ministry is traditionally said to have been three years long.[81][82] In the view of Paul N. Anderson, John's presentation is more plausible historically than that of the Synoptics.[83]
Parables and paradoxes[edit]
Main article: Parables of Jesus
Jesus taught in parables and aphorisms. A parable is a figurative image with a single message (sometimes mistaken for an analogy, in which each element has a metaphoric meaning). An aphorism is a short, memorable turn of phrase. In Jesus' case, aphorisms often involve some paradox or reversal. Authentic parables probably include the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Authentic aphorisms include "turn the other cheek", "go the second mile", and "love your enemies".
Crossan writes that Jesus' parables worked on multiple levels at the same time, provoking discussions with his peasant audience.[19]
Jesus' parables and aphorisms circulated orally among his followers for years before they were written down and later incorporated into the Gospels. They represent the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus.[70]
Eschatology[edit]
Jesus preached mainly about the Kingdom of God. Scholars are divided over whether he was referring to an imminent apocalyptic event or the transformation of everyday life.
A great many - if not a majority - of critical Biblical scholars, going as far back as Albert Schweitzer, hold that Jesus believed that the end of history was coming within his own lifetime or within the lifetime of his contemporaries.[84]
The evidence for this thesis comes from several verses, including the following:
In Mark 8:38-9:1, Jesus says that the Son of Man will come "in the glory of the Father with the holy angels" during "this adulterous generation." Indeed, he says, "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power."
In Luke 21:35-36, Jesus urges constant, unremitting preparedness on the part of his followers in light of the imminence of the end of history and the final intervention of God. "Be alert at all times, praying to have strength to flee from all these things that are about to take place and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man."
In Mark 13:24-27, 30, Jesus describes what will happen when the end comes, saying that "the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and ... they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory." He gives a timeline for this event: "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place."
The Apostle Paul also seems to have shared this expectation. Toward the end of 1 Corinthians 7, he counsels Christians to avoid getting married if they can since the end of history was imminent. Speaking to the unmarried, he writes, "I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as your are." "I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short ... For the present form of this world is passing away." (1 Corinthians 7:26, 29, 31) In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Paul also seems to believe that he will live to witness the return of Jesus and the end of history.
According to Geza Vermes, Jesus' announcement of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God "was patently not fulfilled" and "created a serious embarrassment for the primitive church".[85] According to E.P. Sanders, these eschatological sayings of Jesus are "passages that many Christian scholars would like to see vanish" as "the events they predict did not come to pass, which means that Jesus was wrong."[86]
Robert W. Funk and colleagues, on the other hand, wrote that beginning in the 1970s, some scholars have come to reject the view of Jesus as eschatological, pointing out that he rejected the asceticism of John the Baptist and his eschatological message. In this view, the Kingdom of God is not a future state, but rather a contemporary, mysterious presence. John Dominic Crossan describes Jesus' eschatology as based on establishing a new, holy way of life rather than on God's redeeming intervention in history.[19]
Evidence for the Kingdom of God as already present derives from these verses.[87]
In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says that one won't be able to observe God's Kingdom arriving, and that it "is right there in your presence."
In Thomas 113, Jesus says that God's Kingdom "is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."
In Luke 11:20, Jesus says that if he drives out demons by God's finger then "for you" the Kingdom of God has arrived.
Furthermore, the major parables of Jesus do not reflect an apocalyptic view of history.
The Jesus Seminar concludes that apocalyptic statements attributed to Jesus could have originated from early Christians, as apocalyptic ideas were common, but the statements about God's Kingdom being mysteriously present cut against the common view and could have originated only with Jesus himself.[87]
Laconic sage[edit]
The sage of the ancient Near East was a self-effacing man of few words who did not provoke encounters.[88] A holy man offers cures and exorcisms only when petitioned, and even then may be reluctant.[88] Jesus seems to have displayed a similar style.[88]
The Gospels present Jesus engaging in frequent "question and answer" religious debates with Pharisees and Sadducees. The Jesus Seminar believes the debates about scripture and doctrine are rabbinic in style and not characteristic of Jesus.[89] They believe these "conflict stories" represent the conflicts between the early Christian community and those around them: the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. The group believes these sometimes include genuine sayings or concepts but are largely the product of the early Christian community.
Table fellowship[edit]
Open table fellowship with outsiders was central to Jesus' ministry.[19] His practice of eating with the lowly people that he healed defied the expectations of traditional Jewish society.[19] He presumably taught at the meal, as would be expected in a symposium.[70] His conduct caused enough of a scandal that he was accused of being a glutton and a drunk.[70]
John Dominic Crossan identifies this table practice as part of Jesus' radical egalitarian program.[19] The importance of table fellowship is seen in the prevalence of meal scenes in early Christian art[19] and in the Eucharist, the Christian ritual of bread and wine.[70]
Disciples[edit]
Main article: Disciple (Christianity)
Jesus recruited twelve Galilean peasants as his inner circle, including several fishermen.[90] The fishermen in question and the tax collector Matthew would have business dealings requiring some knowledge of Greek.[91] The father of two of the fishermen is represented as having the means to hire labourers for his fishing business, and tax collectors were seen as exploiters.[92] The twelve were expected to rule the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingdom of God.[90]
The disciples of Jesus play a large role in the search for the historical Jesus. However, the four Gospels, use different words to apply to Jesus' followers. The Greek word "ochloi" refers to the crowds who gathered around Jesus as he preached. The word "mathetes" refers to the followers who stuck around for more teaching. The word "apostolos" refers to the twelve disciples, or apostles, whom Jesus chose specifically to be his close followers. With these three categories of followers, Meier uses a model of concentric circles around Jesus, with an inner circle of true disciples, a larger circle of followers, and an even larger circle of those who gathered to listen to him.
Jesus controversially accepted women and sinners (those who violated purity laws) among his followers. Even though women were never directly called "disciples", certain passages in the Gospels seem to indicate that women followers of Jesus were equivalent to the disciples. It was possible for members of the "ochloi" to cross over into the "mathetes" category. However, Meier argues that some people from the "mathetes" category actually crossed into the "apostolos" category, namely Mary Magdalene. The narration of Jesus' death and the events that accompany it mention the presence of women. Meier states that the pivotal role of the women at the cross is revealed in the subsequent narrative, where at least some of the women, notably Mary Magdalene, witnessed both the burial of Jesus (Mark 15:47) and discovered the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8). Luke also mentions that as Jesus and the Twelve were travelling from city to city preaching the "good news", they were accompanied by women, who provided for them out of their own means. We can conclude that women did follow Jesus a considerable length of time during his Galilean ministry and his last journey to Jerusalem. Such a devoted, long-term following could not occur without the initiative or active acceptance of the women who followed him. However, most scholars would argue that it is unreasonable to say that Mary Magdalene's seemingly close relationship with Jesus suggests that she was a disciple of Jesus or one of the Twelve.[citation needed] In name, the women are not historically considered "disciples" of Jesus, but the fact that he allowed them to follow and serve him proves that they were to some extent treated as disciples.
The Gospels recount Jesus commissioning disciples to spread the word, sometimes during his life (e.g., Mark 6:7-12) and sometimes during a resurrection appearance (e.g., Matthew 28:18-20). These accounts reflect early Christian practice as well as Jesus' original instructions, though some scholars contend that historical Jesus issued no such missionary commission.[93]
According to John Dominic Crossan, Jesus sent his disciples out to heal and to proclaim the Kingdom of God. They were to eat with those they healed rather than with higher status people who might well be honored to host a healer, and Jesus directed them to eat whatever was offered them. This implicit challenge to the social hierarchy was part of Jesus' program of radical egalitarianism. These themes of healing and eating are common in early Christian art.[19]
Jesus' instructions to the missionaries appear in the synoptic Gospels and in the Gospel of Thomas.[19] These instructions are distinct from the commission that the resurrected Jesus gives to his followers, the Great Commission, text rated as black (inauthentic) by the Jesus Seminar.[94]
Asceticism[edit]
See also: Evangelical counsels
The fellows of the Jesus Seminar mostly held that Jesus was not an ascetic, and that he probably drank wine and did not fast, other than as all observant Jews did.[95] He did, however, promote a simple life and the renunciation of wealth.
Jesus said that some made themselves "eunuchs" for the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:12). This aphorism might have been meant to establish solidarity with eunuchs, who were considered "incomplete" in Jewish society.[96] Alternatively, he may have been promoting celibacy.
Some[who?] suggest that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, or that he probably had a special relationship with her,[97] or that he was married to Mary the sister of Lazarus.[citation needed] However, Ehrman notes the conjectural nature of these claims as "not a single one of our ancient sources indicates that Jesus was married, let alone married to Mary Magdalene."[98]
John the Baptist was an ascetic and perhaps a Nazirite, who promoted celibacy like the Essenes.[99] Ascetic elements, such as fasting, appeared in Early Christianity and are mentioned by Matthew during Jesus' discourse on ostentation.
Jerusalem[edit]
The narrow streets of Via Dolorosa, Jerusalem.
See also: Jerusalem in Christianity
Jesus and his followers left Galilee and traveled to Jerusalem in Judea. They may have traveled through Samaria as reported in John, or around the border of Samaria as reported in Luke, as was common practice for Jews avoiding hostile Samaritans. Jerusalem was packed with Jews who had come for Passover, perhaps comprising 300,000 to 400,000 pilgrims.[100]
Entrance to Jerusalem[edit]
Main article: Palm Sunday
Jesus might have entered Jerusalem on a donkey as a symbolic act, possibly to contrast with the triumphant entry that a Roman conqueror would make, or to enact a prophecy in Zechariah. Christian scripture makes the reference to Zechariah explicit, perhaps because the scene was invented as scribes looked to scripture to help them flesh out the details of the gospel narratives.[70]
Temple disturbance[edit]
Main article: Jesus and the Money Changers
Jesus taught in Jerusalem, and he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[70] In response, the temple authorities arrested him and turned him over to the Roman authorities for execution.[70] He might have been betrayed into the hands of the temple police, but Funk suggests the authorities might have arrested him with no need for a traitor.[70]
Crucifixion[edit]
Antonio Ciseri's 1862 depiction of Ecce Homo, as Pontius Pilate delivers Jesus to the crowd
Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Iudaea province (26 AD to 36 AD). Some scholars suggest that Pilate executed Jesus as a public nuisance, perhaps with the cooperation of the Jewish authorities.[70] E. P. Sanders argued that the cleansing of the Temple was an act that seriously offended his Jewish audience and eventually led to his death,[101][102][103] while Bart D. Ehrman argued that Jesus' actions would have been considered treasonous and thus a capital offense by the Romans.[104] The claim that the Sadducee high-priestly leaders and their associates handed Jesus over to the Romans is strongly attested.[69] Historians debate whether Jesus intended to be crucified.[105]
The Jesus Seminar argued that Christian scribes seem to have drawn on scripture in order to flesh out the passion narrative, such as inventing Jesus' trial.[70] However, scholars are split on the historicity of the underlying events.[106]
John Dominic Crossan points to the use of the word "kingdom" in his central teachings of the "Kingdom of God," which alone would have brought Jesus to the attention of Roman authority. Rome dealt with Jesus as it commonly did with essentially non-violent dissension: the killing of its leader. It was usually violent uprisings such as those during the Roman-Jewish Wars that warranted the slaughter of leader and followers. As the balance shifted in the early Church from the Jewish community to Gentile converts, it may have sought to distance itself from rebellious Jews (those who rose up against the Roman occupation). There was also a schism developing within the Jewish community as these believers in Jesus were pushed out of the synagogues after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, see Council of Jamnia. The divergent accounts of Jewish involvement in the trial of Jesus suggest some of the unfavorable sentiments between such Jews that resulted. See also List of events in early Christianity.
Pietro Perugino, Crucifixion of Christ, 1494-1496, Florence
Aside from the fact that the Gospels provide different accounts of the Jewish role in Jesus's death (for example, Mark and Matthew report two separate trials, Luke one, and John none), Fredriksen, like other scholars (see Catchpole 1971) argues that many elements of the gospel accounts could not possibly have happened: according to Jewish law, the court could not meet at night; it could not meet on a major holiday; Jesus's statements to the Sanhedrin or the High Priest (e.g. that he was the messiah) did not constitute blasphemy; the charges that the Gospels purport the Jews to have made against Jesus were not capital crimes against Jewish law; even if Jesus had been accused and found guilty of a capital offense by the Sanhedrin, the punishment would have been death by stoning (the fates of Saint Stephen and James the Just for example) and not crucifixion. This necessarily assumes that the Jewish leaders were scrupulously obedient to Roman law, and never broke their own laws, customs or traditions even for their own advantage. In response, it has been argued that the legal circumstances surrounding the trial have not been well understood,[107] and that Jewish leaders were not always strictly obedient, either to Roman law or to their own.[108] Furthermore, talk of a restoration of the Jewish monarchy was seditious under Roman occupation. Further, Jesus would have entered Jerusalem at an especially risky time, during Passover, when popular emotions were running high. Although most Jews did not have the means to travel to Jerusalem for every holiday, virtually all tried to comply with these laws as best they could. And during these festivals, such as the Passover, the population of Jerusalem would swell, and outbreaks of violence were common. Scholars suggest that the High Priest feared that Jesus' talk of an imminent restoration of an independent Jewish state might spark a riot. Maintaining the peace was one of the primary jobs of the Roman-appointed High Priest, who was personally responsible to them for any major outbreak. Scholars therefore argue that he would have arrested Jesus for promoting sedition and rebellion, and turned him over to the Romans for punishment.
Both the gospel accounts and [the] Pauline interpolation [found at 1 Thes 2:14-16] were composed in the period immediately following the terrible war of 66-73. The Church had every reason to assure prospective Gentile audiences that the Christian movement neither threatened nor challenged imperial sovereignty, despite the fact that their founder had himself been crucified, that is, executed as a rebel.[109]
However, Paul's preaching of the Gospel and its radical social practices were by their very definition a direct affront to the social hierarchy of Greco-Roman society itself, and thus these new teachings undermined the Empire, ultimately leading to full scale Roman persecution of Christians aimed at stamping out the new faith.
Burial and Empty Tomb[edit]
Some scholars are split on whether Jesus was buried. Craig A. Evans contends that, "the literary, historical and archaeological evidence points in one direction: that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb, according to Jewish custom."[110] John Dominic Crossan, based on his unique position that the Gospel of Peter contains the oldest primary source about Jesus, argued that the burial accounts become progressively extravagant and thus found it historically unlikely that an enemy would release a corpse, contending that Jesus' followers did not have the means to know what happened to Jesus' body.[111] Crossan's position on the Gospel of Peter has not found scholarly support,[112] from Meyer's description of it as "eccentric and implausible",[113] to Koester's critique of it as "seriously flawed".[114] Habermas argued against Crossan, stating that the response of Jewish authorities against Christian claims for the resurrection presupposed a burial and empty tomb,[115] and he observed the discovery of the body of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol, a man who died by crucifixion in the first century and was discovered at a burial site outside ancient Jerusalem in an ossuary, arguing that this find revealed important facts about crucifixion and burial in first century Palestine.[116] Other scholars consider the burial by Joseph of Arimathea found in Mark 15 to be historically probable,[117] and some have gone on to argue that the tomb was thereafter discovered empty.[118] More positively, Mark Waterman maintains the Empty Tomb priority over the Appearances.[119] Michael Grant wrote:
[I]f we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.[120]
However, Marcus Borg notes:
the first reference to the empty tomb story is rather odd: Mark, writing around 70 CE, tells us that some women found the tomb empty but told no one about it. Some scholars think this indicates that the story of the empty tomb is a late development and that the way Mark tells it explains why it was not widely (or previously) known[121]
Likewise, scholars Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz conclude that "the empty tomb can only be illuminated by the Easter faith (which is based on appearances); the Easter faith cannot be illuminated by the empty tomb."[122]
Resurrection appearances[edit]
Main article: Resurrection appearances of Jesus
The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio (16th century), depicts the resurrected Jesus.
Peter, Paul, and Mary apparently had visionary experiences of a risen Jesus.[70] Paul recorded his vision in an epistle and lists other reported appearances. The original Mark reports Jesus' empty tomb, and the later Gospels and later endings to Mark narrate various resurrection appearances.
The two oldest manuscripts (4th century) of Mark, the earliest Gospel, break off at 16:8 stating that the women came and found an empty tomb "and they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid". (Mk 16:8) The passages stating that he had been seen by Mary Magdelene and the eleven disciples (Mk 16:9-20) were added only later, and the hypothetical original ending was lost. Scholars have put forth a number of theories concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. The Jesus Seminar concluded: "In the view of the Seminar, he did not rise bodily from the dead; the resurrection is based instead on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary."[123] E.P. Sanders argues for the difficulty of accusing the early witnesses of any deliberate fraud:
It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud. 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. Moreover, some of the witnesses of the Resurrection would give their lives for their belief. This also makes fraud unlikely.[124]
Most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection a non-historical question but instead a philosophical or theological question.[125]
Methods of research[edit]
See also: Quest for the historical Jesus
Albert Schweitzer, whose book coined the term Quest for the historical Jesus
In the early church, there were already tendencies to portray Jesus as a verifiable demonstration of the extraordinary.[126][127] Since the 18th century, scholars have taken part in three separate "quests" for the historical Jesus, attempting to reconstruct various portraits of his life using historical methods.[21][128] While textual criticism (or lower criticism) had been practiced for centuries, a number of approaches to historical analysis and a number of criteria for evaluating the historicity of events emerged as of the 18th century, as a series of "Quests for the historical Jesus" took place. At each stage of development, scholars suggested specific forms and methodologies of analysis and specific criteria to be used to determine historical validity.[129]
The first Quest, which started in 1778, was almost entirely based on biblical criticism. This was supplemented with form criticism in 1919 and redaction criticism in 1948.[129] Form criticism began as an attempt to trace the history of the biblical material before it was written down, and may thus be seen as starting when textual criticism ends.[130] Form criticism looks for patterns within units of biblical text and attempts to trace their origin based on the patterns.[130] Redaction criticism may be viewed as the child of text criticism and form criticism.[131] This approach views an author as a "redactor" i.e. someone preparing a report, and tries to understand how the redactor(s) has molded the narrative to express their own perspectives.[131]
At the end of the first Quest (c. 1906) the criterion for multiple attestation was used and was the major additional element up to 1950s.[129] The concept behind multiple attestation is simple: as the number of independent sources that vouch for an event increases, confidence in the historical authenticity of the event rises.[129]
Other criteria were being developed at the same time, e.g. "double dissimilarity" in 1913, "least distinctiveness" in 1919 and "coherence and consistency" in 1921.[129] The criterion of double dissimilarity views a reported saying or action of Jesus as possibly authentic, if it is dissimilar from both the Judaism of his time and also from the traditions of the early Christianity that immediately followed him.[132] The least distinctiveness criterion relies on the assumption that when stories are passed from person to person, the peripheral, least distinct elements may be distorted, but the central element remains unchanged.[133] The criterion of "coherence and consistency" states that material can be used only when other material has been identified as authentic to corroborate it.[129]
The second Quest was launched in 1953, and along with it the criterion of embarrassment was introduced.[129] This criterion states that a group is unlikely to invent a story that would be embarrassing to themselves.[129] The criterion of "historical plausibility" was introduced in 1997, after the start of the third Quest in 1988.[129] This principle analyzes the plausibility of an event in two separate components: contextual plausibility and consequential plausibility, i.e. the historical context needs to be suitable, as well as the consequences.[129]
A new characteristic of the modern aspects of the third quest has been the role of archaeology and James Charlesworth states that few modern scholars now want to overlook the archaeological discoveries that clarify the nature of life in Galilee and Judea during the time of Jesus.[134] A further characteristic of the third quest has been its interdisciplinary and global nature of the scholarship.[135] While the first two quests was mostly by European Protestant theologians, the third quest has seen a worldwide influx of scholars from multiple disciplines.[135]
More recently historicists have focussed their attention on the historical writings associated with the period in which Jesus lived[136][137] or on the evidence concerning his family.[138][139][140] The redaction of these documents through early Christian sources till the 3rd or 4th centuries has also been a rich source of new information.
Criticism of Jesus research methods[edit]
A number of scholars have criticised Historical Jesus research for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, and some have argued that modern biblical scholarship is insufficiently critical and sometimes amounts to covert apologetics.[141][142]
Theological bias[edit]
John Meier, a Catholic priest and a professor of theology at University of Notre Dame, has stated "... I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed ..."[143] Meier also wrote that in the past the quest for the historical Jesus has often been motivated more by a desire to produce an alternate Christology than a true historical search.[28]
The British Methodist scholar Clive Marsh[144] has stated that the construction of the portraits of Jesus as part of various quests have often been driven by "specific agendas" and that historical components of the relevant biblical texts are often interpreted to fit specific goals.[29] Marsh lists theological agendas that aim to confirm the divinity of Jesus, anti-ecclesiastical agendas that aim to discredit Christianity and political agendas that aim to interpret the teachings of Jesus with the hope of causing social change.[29][145]
The New Testament scholar Nicholas Perrin has argued that since most biblical scholars are Christians, a certain bias is inevitable, but he does not see this as a major problem.[146][147]
Lack of methodological soundness[edit]
The historical analysis techniques used by biblical scholars have been questioned,[27][28][29] and according to James Dunn it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus."[148][149][150]
W.R. Herzog has stated that "What we call the historical Jesus is the composite of the recoverable bits and pieces of historical information and speculation about him that we assemble, construct, and reconstruct. For this reason, the historical Jesus is, in Meier's words, 'a modern abstraction and construct.'"[151]
Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen's University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians attempting to reconstruct a biography of the man apart from the mere facts of his existence and crucifixion have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions, which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also identifies a peculiar downward dating creep, and holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty. He says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, more than any other group in present day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work. It is only through considerable individual heroism, that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work.[152][153]
Dale Allison, a Presbyterian theologian and professor of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, says, "... We wield our criteria to get what we want ..."[27]
According to James Dunn, "...the 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history."[154] (Emphasis in the original). Dunn further explains that "the facts are not to be identified as data; they are always an interpretation of the data.[155]
Since Albert Schweitzer's book The Quest of the Historical Jesus, scholars have for long stated that many of the portraits of Jesus are "pale reflections of the researchers" themselves.[23][156][157] Albert Schweitzer accused early scholars of religious bias. John Dominic Crossan summarized the recent situation by stating that many authors writing about the life of Jesus "... do autobiography and call it biography."[23][158]
Scarcity of sources[edit]
Bart Ehrman and separately Andreas Köstenberger contend that given the scarcity of historical sources, it is generally difficult for any scholar to construct a portrait of Jesus that can be considered historically valid beyond the basic elements of his life.[159][160] On the other hand, scholars such as N. T. Wright and Luke Timothy Johnson argue that the image of Jesus presented in the gospels is largely accurate, and that dissenting scholars are simply too cautious about what we can claim to know about the ancient period.[125]
Myth theory[edit]
Main article: Christ myth theory
The Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.[161] Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century: that the New Testament has no historical value, that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots.[162]
In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this subject. Some "mythicists" say that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional.[163][164][165]
The scholarly consensus is that the Christ myth theory has been refuted, and that Jesus indeed existed as a historical figure.[166]
See also[edit]
Academic approachBiblical archaeology
Biblical criticism
Biblical manuscript
Census of Quirinius, the enrollment of the Roman provinces of Syria and Judaea for tax purposes taken in the year 6/7.
Criterion of dissimilarity
Criticism of the Bible
Historical background of the New Testament
Historicity of Jesus Sources for the historicity of Jesus
Historicity of the Bible
Jesus Seminar
Christian approachChronology of Jesus
Detailed Christian timeline
Gospel harmony
Life of Jesus in the New Testament
Ministry of Jesus
Associated sitesÆnon
Al Maghtas
Bethabara
New Testament places associated with Jesus
Qasr el Yahud
Notes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d e The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 page 5
2.^ Jump up to: a b c Jesus Research: An International Perspective (Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus) by James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorny (Sep 15, 2009) ISBN 0802863531 pages 1-2
3.Jump up ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by Frank Leslie Cross, Elizabeth A. Livingstone, p 779, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=fUqcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA779&dq=Historical+Jesus,+Quest+of+the.%22+Oxford+Dictionary+of+the+Christian+Church&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZPszVN7tN4XEPbyzgMAO&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Historical%20Jesus%2C%20Quest%20of%20the.%22%20Oxford%20Dictionary%20of%20the%20Christian%20Church&f=false
4.Jump up ^ Amy-Jill Levine in the The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. 2006 Princeton Univ Press ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 pages 1-2
5.Jump up ^ Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman (Sep 23, 1999) ISBN 0195124731 Oxford University Press pp. ix-xi
6.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-515462-2, chapters 13, 15
7.^ Jump up to: a b In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
8.Jump up ^ Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61
9.^ Jump up to: a b Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
10.^ Jump up to: a b Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
11.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
12.Jump up ^ Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1-6
13.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
14.^ Jump up to: a b c Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 pages 168–173
15.^ Jump up to: a b c Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993.
16.Jump up ^ John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life. Lion Hudson 2009, pp. 138-9.
17.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 10. Jesus as healer: the miracles of Jesus.
18.^ Jump up to: a b c d Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition)
19.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998.
20.Jump up ^ E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. p.280
21.^ Jump up to: a b c The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth by Ben Witherington (May 8, 1997) ISBN 0830815449 pages 9-13
22.^ Jump up to: a b Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell (1 Jan 1999) ISBN 0664257038 pages 19-23
23.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 pages 124-125
24.^ Jump up to: a b c d The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1 by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young (Feb 20, 2006) ISBN 0521812399 page 23
25.^ Jump up to: a b Images of Christ (Academic Paperback) by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes and David Tombs (Dec 19, 2004) ISBN 0567044602 T&T Clark page 74
26.^ Jump up to: a b Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth by Michael James McClymond (Mar 22, 2004) ISBN 0802826806 pages 16-22
27.^ Jump up to: a b c Allison, Dale (February 2009). The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-8028-6262-4. Retrieved Jan 9, 2011. "We wield our criteria to get what we want."
28.^ Jump up to: a b c John P. Meier (26 May 2009). A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Law and Love. Yale University Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-0-300-14096-5. Retrieved 27 August 2010.
29.^ Jump up to: a b c d Clive Marsh, "Diverse Agendas at Work in the Jesus Quest" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus by Tom Holmen and Stanley E. Porter (Jan 12, 2011) ISBN 9004163727 pages 986-1002
30.Jump up ^ John P. Meier "Criteria: How do we decide what comes from Jesus?" in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight (Jul 15, 2006) ISBN 1575061007 page 124 "Since in the quest for the historical Jesus almost anything is possible, the function of the criteria is to pass from the merely possible to the really probable, to inspect various probabilities, and to decide which candidate is most probable. Ordinarily the criteria can not hope to do more."
31.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus of the Gospels by Craig S. Keener (13 Apr 2012) ISBN 0802868886 page 163
32.Jump up ^ Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship by Marcus J. Borg (1 Aug 1994) ISBN 1563380943 pages 4-6
33.Jump up ^ Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
34.Jump up ^ James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
35.Jump up ^ The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, p. 145: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".
36.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0-86012-006-6 pages 730-731
37.Jump up ^ Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9-page 15
38.Jump up ^ "What about the resurrection? ... Some people believe it did, some believe it didn't. ... But if you do believe it, it is not as a historian" Ehrman, B. Jesus, Interrupted, pg 176 HarperOne; 1 Reprint edition (2 February 2010)
39.Jump up ^ Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 page 181
40.^ Jump up to: a b Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 ISBN 0-8054-4482-3 pages 431-436
41.Jump up ^ Van Voorst (2000) pp. 39-53
42.Jump up ^ Schreckenberg, Heinz; Kurt Schubert (1992). Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature. ISBN 90-232-2653-4.
43.Jump up ^ Kostenberger, Andreas J.; L. Scott Kellum; Charles L. Quarles (2009). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. ISBN 0-8054-4365-7.
44.Jump up ^ The new complete works of Josephus by Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, Paul L. Maier ISBN 0-8254-2924-2 pages 662-663
45.Jump up ^ Josephus XX by Louis H. Feldman 1965, ISBN 0674995023 page 496
46.Jump up ^ Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence ISBN 0-8028-4368-9. page 83
47.Jump up ^ Flavius Josephus; Maier, Paul L. (December 1995). Josephus, the essential works: a condensation of Jewish antiquities and The Jewish war ISBN 978-0-8254-3260-6 pages 284-285
48.Jump up ^ P.E. Easterling, E. J. Kenney (general editors), The Cambridge History of Latin Literature, page 892 (Cambridge University Press, 1982, reprinted 1996). ISBN 0-521-21043-7
49.^ Jump up to: a b Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000. p 39- 53
50.Jump up ^ Eddy, Paul; Boyd, Gregory (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127
51.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce,Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) p. 23
52.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998). The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-8006-3122-2.
53.Jump up ^ The Case Against Christianity, By Michael Martin, pg 50-51, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=wWkC4dTmK0AC&pg=PA52&dq=historicity+of+jesus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o-_8U5-yEtTH7AbBpoCoAg&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=tacitus&f=false
54.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900-1950, By Walter P. Weaver, pg 53, pg 57, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=1CZbuFBdAMUC&pg=PA45&dq=historicity+of+jesus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o-_8U5-yEtTH7AbBpoCoAg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=tacitus&f=false
55.^ Jump up to: a b Secret of Regeneration, By Hilton Hotema, pg 100, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=jCaopp3R5B0C&pg=PA100&dq=interpolations+in+tacitus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CRf-U9-VGZCe7AbxrIDQCA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=interpolations%20in%20tacitus&f=false
56.Jump up ^ Jesus, University Books, New York, 1956, p.13
57.Jump up ^ France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing. pp. 19–20. ISBN 0-340-38172-8.
58.Jump up ^ Schachter/H.Freedman, Jacob. "Sanhedrin". come-and-hear.com. The Soncino Press. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
59.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 1. The quest of the historical Jesus. p. 1–15.
60.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Chapter 15, Jesus' view of his role in God's plan.
61.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The gospel of Jesus: according to the Jesus Seminar. HarperSanFrancisco. 1999.
62.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond E. et al. (1990). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-614934-0.
63.Jump up ^ Vermes, Geza Jesus the Jew, Fortress Press, New York 1981. p.209
64.Jump up ^ Paolo Flores d'Arcais, MicroMega 3/2007, p.43
65.Jump up ^ Dunn, James D. G.; McKnight, Scot (2005). The historical Jesus in recent research Volume 10 of Sources for biblical and theological study. Eisenbrauns (EISENBRAUNS). p. 325. ISBN 1575061007.
66.Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "John" p. 302-310
67.Jump up ^ "[T]here is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition." in "Does the New Testament call Jesus God?" in Theological Studies, 26, (1965) p. 545-73
68.Jump up ^ John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, page 27: "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate."; Gerd Lüdemann, "An Embarrassing Misrepresentation", Free Inquiry, October / November 2007: "the broad consensus of modern New Testament scholars that the proclamation of Jesus' exalted nature was in large measure the creation of the earliest Christian communities."
69.^ Jump up to: a b "Jesus Christ." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
70.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998.
71.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. p. 146
72.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. John the Baptist cameo. p. 268
73.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. p. 178
74.Jump up ^ See Matthew 11:7-10. Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. p. 146
75.Jump up ^ Mark 6:14, 16, 8:28
76.Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "The Historical Jesus" p. 255-260
77.Jump up ^ following the conclusion of Josephus' Antiquities 18.5: "Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late."
78.Jump up ^ Mark 7:24-30
79.Jump up ^ Introduction. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993.
80.Jump up ^ First: 2:13 and 2:23; second: 6:4; third: 11:55, 12:1, 13:1, 18:29, 18:39, 19:14
81.Jump up ^ Richard L. Niswonger, New Testament History, Zondervan, 1993, p. 152
82.Jump up ^ Geoffrey W. Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: A-D, Wm. B. Eerdmans 1995 p. 682
83.Jump up ^ The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006 p. 162
84.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford. 1999. page 127.
85.Jump up ^ Geza Vermes. The Authentic Gospels of Jesus. Penguin, 2003. p. 381.
86.Jump up ^ E. P. Sanders. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. p. 178
87.^ Jump up to: a b Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "God's Imperial Rule: Present or Future," p 136-137.
88.^ Jump up to: a b c Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. Introduction, p 1-30.
89.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. pp. 103-104.
90.^ Jump up to: a b Ehrman, Bart. Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. Oxford University Press, USA. 2006. ISBN 0-19-530013-0
91.Jump up ^ Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans, Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (BRILL, 1998 ISBN 9004111425, 9789004111424), p. 136
92.Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus for Dummies 2007 ISBN 0470167858, 9780470167854, p. 23
93.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Mark," p 39-127.
94.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993.
95.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 221.
96.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 220.
97.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 221.
98.Jump up ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Fact and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code p.144
99.Jump up ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Essenes: "The similarity in many respects between Christianity and Essenism is striking: There were the same communism (Acts iv. 34-35); the same belief in baptism or bathing, and in the power of prophecy; the same aversion to marriage, enhanced by firmer belief in the Messianic advent; the same system of organization, and the same rules for the traveling brethren delegated to charity-work (see Apostle and Apostleship); and, above all, the same love-feasts or brotherly meals (comp. Agape; Didascalia)."
100.Jump up ^ Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. p. 249
101.Jump up ^ Sanders 1987, p.[citation needed]
102.Jump up ^ The Jesus Seminar concurs that the temple incident led to Jesus' execution.
103.Jump up ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church reports that "it is possible" that the temple disturbance led to Jesus' arrest, offers no alternative reason, and states more generally that a political rather than religious motivation was likely behind it. "Jesus Christ." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
104.Jump up ^ Ehrman 1999, p. 221-3
105.Jump up ^ Are You the One? The Textual Dynamics of Messianic Self-Identity
106.Jump up ^ Brown 1993, vol. 1, p. 711-12; Funk 1998, p. 152-3
107.Jump up ^ Barrett, CK 'The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes', Westminster John Knox Press, 1978, page 49, 'The alleged contraventions of Jewish law seem to rest upon misunderstandings of Jewish texts'
108.Jump up ^ Barrett, CK 'The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes', Westminster John Knox Press, 1978, pp. 49-50, 'The explanation is that special circumstances were regularly allowed to modify the course of the law. For example, Simeon b. Shetah (fl. 104-69 B.C.) caused to be hanged 80 women (witches) in one day, though it was against the law to judge more than two. 'The hour demanded it' (Sanhedrin 6.4, Y. Sanhedrin 6,235c,58). Nisan 15, so far from being an unlikely day, was one of the best possible days for the execution of Jesus. The regulation for the condemnation of a 'rebellious teacher' runs: 'He was kept in guard until one of the Feasts (passover, Pentecost, or Tabernacles) and he was put to death on one of the Feasts, for it is written, And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously (Deuteronomy 17.13)' (Sanhedrin 11.4). There was only one day on which 'all the people' were gathered together in Jerusalem for the Passover; it was Nisan 15, the Marcan date for the crucifixion.'
109.Jump up ^ Fredriksen, Paula. (2000) From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ. Second Edition. Yale University Press. p. 122 ISBN 0300084579
110.Jump up ^ Craig A. Evans, "The Silence of Burial" in Jesus, the Final Days Ed. Troy A. Miller. p.68
111.Jump up ^ Crossan 1994, p. 154-158; cf. Ehrman 1999, p.229
112.Jump up ^ N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), p. 49; who wrote "[Crossan's hypothesis] has not been accepted yet by any other serious scholar."
113.Jump up ^ Ben Meyer, critical notice of The Historical Jesus, by John Dominic Crossan, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 575
114.Jump up ^ Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (London: SCM, 1990), p. 220.
115.Jump up ^ G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, (College Press, 1996) p. 128; he observed that the Jewish polemic is recorded in Matthew 28:11-15 and was employed through the second century, cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 108; Tertullian, On Spectacles, 30
116.Jump up ^ G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, (College Press, 1996) p. 173; cf. Vasilius Tzaferis, "Jewish Tombs At and Near Giv'at ha-Mivtar", Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970) pp. 38-59".
117.Jump up ^ Brown 1993, vol. 2, ch. 46
118.Jump up ^ e.g. Paul L. Maier, "The Empty Tomb as History", in Christianity Today, March, 1975, p. 5
119.Jump up ^ Mark W. Waterman, The Empty Tomb Tradition of Mark: Text, History, and Theological Struggles (Los Angeles: Agathos Press, 2006) p. 211-212
120.Jump up ^ M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner's, 1977) p. 176
121.Jump up ^ Borg, Marcus J. "Thinking About Easter" Bible Review. April 1994, p. 15 and 49
122.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd; and Merz, Annette. The historical Jesus: A comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1998. Tr from German (1996 edition). p. 503. ISBN 978-0-8006-3123-9
123.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. A Polebridge Press Book from Harper San Francisco. ISBN 0-06-062978-9.
124.Jump up ^ "Jesus Christ." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 10 Jan. 2007
125.^ Jump up to: a b Meier 1994 v.2 ch. 17; Ehrman 1999 p.227-8
126.Jump up ^ Georgi, Dieter (1986). The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.
127.Jump up ^ Georgi, Dieter (1991). Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
128.Jump up ^ The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 pages 1-6
129.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 pages 100-120
130.^ Jump up to: a b The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology by Alan Richardson 1983 ISBN 0664227481 pages 215-216
131.^ Jump up to: a b Interpreting the New Testament by Daniel J. Harrington (Jun 1990) ISBN 0814651240 pages 96-98
132.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q by Brian Han Gregg (30 Jun 2006) ISBN 3161487508 page 29
133.Jump up ^ Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 pages 77-78
134.Jump up ^ "Jesus Research and Archaeology: A New Perspective" by James H. Charlesworth in Jesus and archaeology edited by James H. Charlesworth 2006 ISBN 0-8028-4880-X pages 11-15
135.^ Jump up to: a b Soundings in the Religion of Jesus: Perspectives and Methods in Jewish and Christian Scholarship by Bruce Chilton Anthony Le Donne and Jacob Neusner 2012 ISBN 0800698010 page 132
136.Jump up ^ Mason, Steve (2002), "Josephus and the New Testament" (Baker Academic)
137.Jump up ^ Tabor, James (2012)"Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity" (Simon & Schuster)
138.Jump up ^ Eisenman, Robert (1998), "James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls" (Watkins)
139.Jump up ^ Butz, Jeffrey "The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity" (Inner Traditions)
140.Jump up ^ Tabor, James (2007), "The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity"
141.Jump up ^ "Introducing the Journal of Higher Criticism".
142.Jump up ^ Hendel, Ronald (June 2010). "Knowledge and Power in Biblical Scholarship". Retrieved 2011-01-06. "... The problem at hand is how to preserve the critical study of the Bible in a professional society that has lowered its standards to the degree that apologetics passes as scholarship ..."
143.Jump up ^ Meier, John. "Finding the Historical Jesus: An Interview With John P. Meier". St. Anthony Messenger. Retrieved Jan 6, 2011. "... I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed."
144.Jump up ^ "Biography Clive Marsh".
145.Jump up ^ Clive Marsh "Quests of the Historical Jesus in New Historicist Perspective" in Biblical Interpretation Journal Volume 5, Number 4, 1997 , pp. 403-437(35)
146.Jump up ^ "Jesus is His Own Ideology: An Interview with Nick Perrin"."My point in the book is to disabuse readers of the notion that Jesus scholars are scientists wearing white lab coats. Like everyone else, they want certain things to be true about Jesus and equally want certain others not to be true of him. I’m included in this (I really hope that I am right in believing that Jesus is both Messiah and Lord.) Will this shape my scholarship? Absolutely. How can it not? We should be okay with that."
147.Jump up ^ McKnight, Scot (April 9, 2010). "The Jesus We'll Never Know". Retrieved Jan 15, 2011. "One has to wonder if the driving force behind much historical Jesus scholarship is ... a historian's genuine (and disinterested) interest in what really happened. The theological conclusions of those who pursue the historical Jesus simply correlate too strongly with their own theological predilections to suggest otherwise."
148.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered Volume 1, by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 pp. 125-126: "the historical Jesus is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data supplied by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then," (the Jesus of Nazareth who walked the hills of Galilee), "and not a figure in history whom we can realistically use to critique the portrayal of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition."
149.Jump up ^ Meir, Marginal Jew, 1:21-25
150.Jump up ^ T. Merrigan, The Historical Jesus in the Pluralist Theology of Religions, in The Myriad Christ: Plurality and the Quest for Unity in Contemporary Christology (ed. T. Merrigan and J. Haers). Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, & Charlesworth, J. H. Jesus research: New methodologies and perceptions : the second Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007, p. 77-78: "Dunn points out as well that 'the Enlightenment Ideal of historical objectivity also projected a false goal onto the quest for the historical Jesus,' which implied that there was a 'historical Jesus,' objectively verifiable, 'who will be different from the dogmatic Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels and who will enable us to criticize the dogmatic Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels.' (Jesus Remembered, p. 125)."
151.Jump up ^ Herzog, W. R. (2005). Prophet and teacher: An introduction to the historical Jesus. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 6
152.Jump up ^ Akenson, Donald (1998). Surpassing wonder: the invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. University of Chicago Press. pp. 539–555. ISBN 978-0-226-01073-1. Retrieved Jan 8, 2011. "... The point I shall argue below is that, the agreed evidentiary practices of the historians of Yeshua, despite their best efforts, have not been those of sound historical practice ..."
153.Jump up ^ "Queen's University:Department of History". Retrieved Jan 22, 2011. "Don Akenson: Professor Irish Studies"
154.Jump up ^ Dunn, James (2003). Christianity In the Making Volume 1: Jesus Remembered. Cambridge, MA: Eermans. p. 126.
155.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered, by James Dunn; p.102
156.Jump up ^ Jesus the Christ by Walter Kasper (Nov 1976) ISBN page 31
157.Jump up ^ Theological Hermeneutics by Angus Paddison (Jun 6, 2005) ISBN 0521849837 Cambridge Univ Press page 43
158.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan (Feb 26, 1993) ISBN 0060616296 page xviii
159.Jump up ^ The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 pages 117–125
160.Jump up ^ Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman 1999 ISBN 0-19-512473-1 pages 22–23
161.Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? Harper Collins, 2012, p. 12, ""In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist . Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." further quoting as authoritative the fuller definition provided by Earl Doherty in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason, 2009, pp. vii–viii: it is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition."
162.Jump up ^ "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
163.Jump up ^ Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. p. 122. ISBN 1-4303-1230-0.
164.Jump up ^ God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
165.Jump up ^ "The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David" Thomas L. Thompson Basic Book Perseus Books' 2005
166.Jump up ^ Did Jesus exist?, Bart Ehrman, 2012, Chapter 1
References[edit]
Barnett, Paul W. (1997). Jesus and the Logic of History (New Studies in Biblical Theology 3). Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-85111-512-8.
Bauckham, Richard (2011). Jesus: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-957527-4.
Brown, Raymond E. (1993). The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the Grave. New York: Anchor Bible. ISBN 0-385-49449-1.
Brown, Raymond E. et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary Prentice Hall 1990 ISBN 0-13-614934-0
Bock, Darrell L., Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods.. Baker Academic: 2002. ISBN 978-0-8010-2451-1.
Craffert, Pieter F. and Botha, Pieter J. J. "Why Jesus Could Walk On The Sea But He Could Not Read And Write". Neotestamenica. 39.1, 2005.
Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus : A Revolutionary Biography. Harpercollins: 1994. ISBN 0-06-061661-X.
Dickson, John. Jesus: A Short Life, Lion Hudson plc, 2008, ISBN 0-8254-7802-2, ISBN 978-0-8254-7802-4, Google Books
Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. New York: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-512473-1.
Fiensy, David A.; Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life, Gorgias Press LLC, 2007, ISBN 1-59333-313-7, ISBN 978-1-59333-313-3, Google books
Fredriksen, Paula (2000). Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-679-76746-6.
Gnilka, Joachim.; Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History, Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.
Gowler, David B.; What Are They Saying About the Historical Jesus?, Paulist Press, 2007,
Grant, Michael. Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's, 1977. ISBN 0-684-14889-7.
Funk, Robert W. (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-062978-9.
Harris, by William V. Ancient Literacy. Harvard University Press: 1989. ISBN 0-674-03380-9.
Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday,
v. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 1991, ISBN 0-385-26425-9v. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 1994, ISBN 0-385-46992-6v. 3, Companions and Competitors, 2001, ISBN 0-385-46993-4v. 4, Law and Love, 2009, ISBN 978-0-300-14096-5O'Collins, G. Jesus: A Portrait. Darton, Longman and Todd: 2008. ISBN 978-0232527193
O'Collins, G. Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. OUP: 2009. ISBN 978-0199557875
Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1987.
Sanders, E.P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Lane The Penguin Press: 1993.
Vermes, G. Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. SCM Classics:2001, ISBN 0-334-02839-6
Theissen, Gerd and Merz, Annette. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3122-6.
Van Voorst, Robert E., Jesus Outside the New Testament, 2000, Eerdmans, google books
Witherington III, Ben. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. InterVarsity Press: 1997. ISBN 0-8308-1544-9.
Wright, N.T. Christian Origins and the Question of God, a projected six volume series of which three have been published under:
v. 1, The New Testament and the People of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1992.;v. 2, Jesus and the Victory of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1997.;v. 3, The Resurrection of the Son of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 2003.Wright, N.T. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is. IVP 1996
Yaghjian, Lucretia. "Ancient Reading", in Richard Rohrbaugh, ed., The Social Sciences in New Testament Interpretation. Hendrickson Publishers: 2004. ISBN 1-56563-410-1.
External links[edit]
"Jesus Christ". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2009. The first section, on Jesus' life and ministry
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Jesus
Commons page
Wikiquote page
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
The Bible and history
Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg
Authority control
WorldCat ·
VIAF: 73945424 ·
LCCN: n79084784 ·
GND: 118557513 ·
BNF: cb124371194 (data) ·
NDL: 00565948
Categories: Jesus and history
Perspectives on Jesus
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Esperanto
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
Nederlands
日本語
Nordfriisk
Plattdüütsch
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 21 June 2015, at 05:56.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Historical Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In the 21st century, the third quest for the historical Jesus witnessed a fragmentation of the scholarly portraits of Jesus after which no unified picture of Jesus could be attained at all.[1][2]
The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods", in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')".[3] It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.[4][5][6]
Virtually all scholars write on the subject accept that Jesus existed,[7][8][9][10] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13][14] Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.[15][16] Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, whose example he may have followed, and after John was executed, began his own preaching in Galilee for only about two to three years prior to his death. He preached the salvation, cleansing from sins, and the Kingdom of God, using parables with startling imagery, and was said to be a teacher and a faith healer.[17] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[18] He sent his apostles out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God.[19] Later, he traveled to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[15] It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem.[15] The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his brother James the Just and the apostles who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus.[20] It developed into Early Christianity (see also List of events in early Christianity).
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[21][22] The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[1] These portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change,[23][24] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[1][2][25] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[23][24][26]
A number of scholars have criticized the various approaches used in the study of the historical Jesus—on one hand for the lack of rigor in research methods, on the other for being driven by "specific agendas" that interpret ancient sources to fit specific goals.[27][28][29] By the 21st century the "maximalist" approaches of the 19th century which accepted all the gospels and the "minimalist" trends of the early 20th century which totally rejected them were abandoned and scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.[30][31][32]
Part of a series on
Jesus
Jesus in Christianity[show]
Jesus in Islam[show]
Background[show]
Jesus in history[show]
Perspectives on Jesus[show]
Jesus in culture[show]
Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Islam portal
v ·
t ·
e
Contents [hide]
1 Historical elements 1.1 Existence 1.1.1 Evidence of Jesus
1.2 Portraits of the historical Jesus
2 Ministry of Jesus 2.1 Works and miracles
2.2 Jesus as divine 2.2.1 Messiah
2.2.2 Son of God
2.2.3 Son of Man
2.2.4 Other depictions
2.3 Jesus and John the Baptist
2.4 Ministry and teachings 2.4.1 Length of ministry
2.4.2 Parables and paradoxes
2.4.3 Eschatology
2.4.4 Laconic sage
2.4.5 Table fellowship
2.4.6 Disciples
2.4.7 Asceticism
2.5 Jerusalem 2.5.1 Entrance to Jerusalem
2.5.2 Temple disturbance
2.6 Crucifixion
2.7 Burial and Empty Tomb
2.8 Resurrection appearances
3 Methods of research
4 Criticism of Jesus research methods 4.1 Theological bias
4.2 Lack of methodological soundness
4.3 Scarcity of sources
4.4 Myth theory
5 See also
6 Notes
7 References
8 External links
Historical elements[edit]
Existence[edit]
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][33][34][35] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[36][37] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[14] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[14] and historians tend to look upon supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[38]
Evidence of Jesus[edit]
Main articles: Historical reliability of the Gospels, Sources for the historicity of Jesus, Josephus on Jesus and Tacitus on Christ
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All the sources we have are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[39]
In conjunction with biblical sources, three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources have been used in the historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[40] These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus.[40][41]
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.[42][43] Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.[44][45][46][47]
Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[48] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe[49] and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,[50] although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various grounds.[49][51][52][53][54][55][55][56][57]
Other considerations outside Christendom are the possible mentions of Jesus in the Talmud. The Talmud speaks in some detail of the conduct of criminal cases of Israel and gathered in one place from 200-500 C.E. "On the eve of the Passover Yeshua was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy." The first date of the Sanhedrin judiciary council being recorded as functioning is 57 B.C.E.[58]
Portraits of the historical Jesus[edit]
Main articles: Portraits of the historical Jesus and Quest for the historical Jesus
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[21][22] The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[1] These portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change,[23][24] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[1][2][25] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[23][24][26]
Contemporary scholarship, representing the "third quest," places Jesus firmly in the Jewish tradition.[59] Leading scholars in the "third quest" include E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Gerd Theissen, Christoph Burchard, and John Dominic Crossan.[59] Jesus is seen as the founder of, in the words of E. P. Sanders, a '"renewal movement within Judaism."[59] This scholarship suggests a continuity between Jesus' life as a wandering charismatic and the same lifestyle carried forward by followers after his death.[59] The main criterion used to discern historical details in the "third quest" is the criterion of plausibility, relative to Jesus' Jewish context and to his influence on Christianity.[59] The main disagreement in contemporary research is whether Jesus was apocalyptic.[59] Most scholars conclude that he was an apocalyptic preacher, like John the Baptist and the apostle Paul.[59] In contrast, certain prominent North American scholars, such as Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan, advocate for a non-eschatological Jesus, one who is more of a Cynic sage than an apocalyptic preacher.[59]
Ministry of Jesus[edit]
Works and miracles[edit]
Early Christian image of the Good Shepherd. Fourth century.
Jesus is said to have performed various miracles in the course of his ministry. These mostly consist of miraculous healing, exorcisms and dominion over other things in nature besides people.
As Albert Schweitzer showed in his Quest of the Historical Jesus, in the early 19th century, debate about the "Historical Jesus" centered on the credibility of the miracle reports. Early 19th century scholars offered three types of explanation for these miracle stories: they were regarded as supernatural events, or were "rationalized" (e.g. by Paulus), or were regarded as mythical (e.g. by Strauss).[citation needed]
Scholars in both Christian and secular traditions continue to debate how the reports of Jesus' miracles should be construed. The Christian Gospels states that Jesus has God's authoritarian power over nature, life and death, but naturalistic historians, following Strauss, generally choose either to see these stories as legend or allegory, or, for some of the miracles they follow the rationalizing method. For example, the healings and exorcisms are sometimes attributed to the placebo effect.[citation needed]
Jesus as divine[edit]
Jesus was a charismatic preacher who taught the principles of salvation, everlasting life, and the Kingdom of God.[18] Scholars see him as accepting a divine role in the approaching apocalypse as the divine king.[60] Jesus' use of three important terms: Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man, reveals his understanding of his divine role.[18][60]
Messiah[edit]
Main article: Messiah
In the Hebrew Bible, three classes of people are identified as "anointed," that is, "Messiahs": prophets, priests, and kings.[60] In Jesus' time, the term Messiah was used in different ways, and no one can be sure how Jesus would even have meant it if he had accepted the term.[60] Though Messianic expectations in general centered on the King Messiah, the Essenes expected both a kingly and a priestly figure in their eschatology.[citation needed]
The Jews of Jesus' time waited expectantly for a divine redeemer who would restore Israel, which suffered under Roman rule. John the Baptist was apparently waiting for one greater than himself, an apocalyptic figure.[61] Christian scripture and faith acclaim Jesus as this "Messiah" ("anointed one," "Christ").
Son of God[edit]
Main article: Son of God
Paul describes God as declaring Jesus to be the Son of God by raising him from the dead, and Sanders argues Mark portrays God as adopting Jesus as his son at his baptism,[60] although many others do not accept this interpretation of Mark.[62] Sanders argues that for Jesus to be hailed as the Son of God does not mean that he is literally God's offspring.[60] Rather, it indicates a very high designation, one who stands in a special relation to God.[60]
In the synoptic Gospels, the being of Jesus as "Son of God" corresponds exactly to the typical Hasidean from Galilee, a "pious" holy man that by God's intervention performs miracles and exorcisms.[63][64]
Son of Man[edit]
Main article: Son of Man
The most literal translation here is "Son of Humanity", or "human being". Jesus uses "Son of Man" to mean sometimes "I" or a mortal in general, sometimes a divine figure destined to suffer, and sometimes a heavenly figure of judgment soon to arrive. Jesus usage of son of man in the first way is historical but without divine claim. The Son of Man as one destined to suffer seems to be, according to some, a Christian invention that does not go back to Jesus, and it is not clear whether Jesus meant himself when he spoke of the divine judge.[60] These three uses do not appear together, such as the Son of Man who suffers and returns.[60] Others maintain, that Jesus' use of this phrase, illustrates Jesus' self understanding as the divine representative of God.[65]
Other depictions[edit]
The title Logos, identifying Jesus as the divine word, first appears in the Gospel of John, written c. 90-100.[66]
Raymond E. Brown concluded that the earliest Christians did not call Jesus, "God".[67] New Testament scholars broadly agree that Jesus did not make any implicit claims to be God.[68] See also Divinity of Jesus and Nontrinitarianism.
Pinchas Lapide sees Jesus as a rabbi in the Hasid tradition of Hillel the Elder, Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa.[citation needed]
The gospels and Christian tradition depict Jesus as being executed at the insistence of Jewish leaders, who considered his claims to divinity to be blasphemous, see also Responsibility for the death of Jesus. Historically, Jesus seems instead to have been executed as a potential source of unrest.[18][69][70]
Jesus and John the Baptist[edit]
Main article: John the Baptist
Judean hills of Israel
Jesus began preaching, teaching, and healing after he was baptized by John the Baptist, an apocalyptic ascetic preacher who called on Jews to repent.
Jesus was apparently a follower of John, a populist and activist prophet who looked forward to divine deliverance of the Jewish homeland from the Romans.[71] John was a major religious figure, whose movement was probably larger than Jesus' own.[72] Herod Antipas had John executed as a threat to his power.[72] In a saying thought to have been originally recorded in Q,[73] the historical Jesus defended John shortly after John's death.[74]
John's followers formed a movement that continued after his death alongside Jesus' own following.[72] John's followers apparently believed that John might have risen from the dead,[75][dubious – discuss] an expectation that may have influenced the expectations of Jesus' followers after his own execution.[72] Some of Jesus' followers were former followers of John the Baptist.[72] Fasting and baptism, elements of John's preaching, may have entered early Christian practice as John's followers joined the movement.[72]
John Dominic Crossan portrays Jesus as rejecting John's apocalyptic eschatology in favor of a sapiential eschatology, in which cultural transformation results from humans' own actions, rather than from God's intervention.[19]
Historians consider Jesus' baptism by John to be historical, an event that early Christians would not have included in their Gospels in the absence of a "firm report".[76] Like Jesus, John and his execution are mentioned by Josephus.[72]
John the Baptist's prominence in both the Gospels and Josephus suggests that he may have been more popular than Jesus in his lifetime; also, Jesus' mission does not begin until after his baptism by John. Fredriksen suggests that it was only after Jesus' death that Jesus emerged as more influential than John. Accordingly, the Gospels project Jesus's posthumous importance back to his lifetime. One way Fredriksen believes this was accomplished was by minimizing John's importance by having John resist baptizing Jesus (Matthew), by referring to the baptism in passing (Luke), or by asserting Jesus's superiority (John).[citation needed]
Scholars posit that Jesus may have been a direct follower in John the Baptist's movement. Prominent Historical Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan suggests that John the Baptist may have been killed for political reasons, not necessarily the personal grudge given in Mark's gospel.[77] Going into the desert and baptising in the Jordan suggests that John and his followers were purifying themselves for what they believed was God's imminent deliverance. This was reminiscent of such a crossing of the Jordan after the Exodus (see Book of Joshua), leading into the promised land of their deliverance from oppression. Jesus' teachings would later diverge from John's apocalyptic vision (though it depends which scholarly view is adopted; according to Ehrman or Sanders apocalyptic vision was the core of Jesus' teaching) which warned of "the wrath to come," as "the axe is laid to the root of the trees" and those who do not bear "good fruit" are "cut down and thrown into the fire." (Luke 3:7-9) Though John's teachings remained visible in those of Jesus, Jesus would emphasize the Kingdom of God not as imminent, but as already present and manifest through the movement's communal commitment to a relationship of equality among all members, and living by the laws of divine justice.[citation needed] All four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified at the requested of the Jewish Sanhedrin by Pontius Pilate.[citation needed] Crucifixion was the penalty for criminals, robbers, traitors, and political insurrection, used as a symbol of Rome's absolute authority - those who stood against Rome were utterly annihilated.[citation needed]
Ministry and teachings[edit]
Main article: Ministry of Jesus
The synoptic Gospels agree that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, went to the River Jordan to meet and be baptised by the prophet John (Yohannan) the Baptist, and shortly after began healing and preaching to villagers and fishermen around the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a freshwater lake). Although there were many Phoenician, Hellenistic, and Roman cities nearby (e.g. Gesara and Gadara; Sidon and Tyre; Sepphoris and Tiberias), there is only one account of Jesus healing someone in the region of the Gadarenes found in the three synoptic Gospels (the demon called Legion), and another when he healed a Syro-Phoenician girl in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon.[78] Otherwise, there is no record of Jesus having spent any significant amount of time in Gentile towns.[citation needed] The center of his work was Capernaum, a small town (about 500 by 350 meters, with a population of 1,500-2,000) where, according to the Gospels, he appeared at the town's synagogue (a non-sacred meeting house where Jews would often gather on the Sabbath to study the Torah), healed a paralytic, and continued seeking disciples.[citation needed]
Once Jesus established a following (although there are debates over the number of followers), he moved towards the Davidic capital of the United Monarchy, the city of Jerusalem.
Length of ministry[edit]
Historians do not know how long Jesus preached. The synoptic Gospels suggest a period of up to one year.[79] The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers,[80] Jesus' ministry is traditionally said to have been three years long.[81][82] In the view of Paul N. Anderson, John's presentation is more plausible historically than that of the Synoptics.[83]
Parables and paradoxes[edit]
Main article: Parables of Jesus
Jesus taught in parables and aphorisms. A parable is a figurative image with a single message (sometimes mistaken for an analogy, in which each element has a metaphoric meaning). An aphorism is a short, memorable turn of phrase. In Jesus' case, aphorisms often involve some paradox or reversal. Authentic parables probably include the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Authentic aphorisms include "turn the other cheek", "go the second mile", and "love your enemies".
Crossan writes that Jesus' parables worked on multiple levels at the same time, provoking discussions with his peasant audience.[19]
Jesus' parables and aphorisms circulated orally among his followers for years before they were written down and later incorporated into the Gospels. They represent the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus.[70]
Eschatology[edit]
Jesus preached mainly about the Kingdom of God. Scholars are divided over whether he was referring to an imminent apocalyptic event or the transformation of everyday life.
A great many - if not a majority - of critical Biblical scholars, going as far back as Albert Schweitzer, hold that Jesus believed that the end of history was coming within his own lifetime or within the lifetime of his contemporaries.[84]
The evidence for this thesis comes from several verses, including the following:
In Mark 8:38-9:1, Jesus says that the Son of Man will come "in the glory of the Father with the holy angels" during "this adulterous generation." Indeed, he says, "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power."
In Luke 21:35-36, Jesus urges constant, unremitting preparedness on the part of his followers in light of the imminence of the end of history and the final intervention of God. "Be alert at all times, praying to have strength to flee from all these things that are about to take place and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man."
In Mark 13:24-27, 30, Jesus describes what will happen when the end comes, saying that "the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and ... they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory." He gives a timeline for this event: "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place."
The Apostle Paul also seems to have shared this expectation. Toward the end of 1 Corinthians 7, he counsels Christians to avoid getting married if they can since the end of history was imminent. Speaking to the unmarried, he writes, "I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as your are." "I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short ... For the present form of this world is passing away." (1 Corinthians 7:26, 29, 31) In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Paul also seems to believe that he will live to witness the return of Jesus and the end of history.
According to Geza Vermes, Jesus' announcement of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God "was patently not fulfilled" and "created a serious embarrassment for the primitive church".[85] According to E.P. Sanders, these eschatological sayings of Jesus are "passages that many Christian scholars would like to see vanish" as "the events they predict did not come to pass, which means that Jesus was wrong."[86]
Robert W. Funk and colleagues, on the other hand, wrote that beginning in the 1970s, some scholars have come to reject the view of Jesus as eschatological, pointing out that he rejected the asceticism of John the Baptist and his eschatological message. In this view, the Kingdom of God is not a future state, but rather a contemporary, mysterious presence. John Dominic Crossan describes Jesus' eschatology as based on establishing a new, holy way of life rather than on God's redeeming intervention in history.[19]
Evidence for the Kingdom of God as already present derives from these verses.[87]
In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says that one won't be able to observe God's Kingdom arriving, and that it "is right there in your presence."
In Thomas 113, Jesus says that God's Kingdom "is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."
In Luke 11:20, Jesus says that if he drives out demons by God's finger then "for you" the Kingdom of God has arrived.
Furthermore, the major parables of Jesus do not reflect an apocalyptic view of history.
The Jesus Seminar concludes that apocalyptic statements attributed to Jesus could have originated from early Christians, as apocalyptic ideas were common, but the statements about God's Kingdom being mysteriously present cut against the common view and could have originated only with Jesus himself.[87]
Laconic sage[edit]
The sage of the ancient Near East was a self-effacing man of few words who did not provoke encounters.[88] A holy man offers cures and exorcisms only when petitioned, and even then may be reluctant.[88] Jesus seems to have displayed a similar style.[88]
The Gospels present Jesus engaging in frequent "question and answer" religious debates with Pharisees and Sadducees. The Jesus Seminar believes the debates about scripture and doctrine are rabbinic in style and not characteristic of Jesus.[89] They believe these "conflict stories" represent the conflicts between the early Christian community and those around them: the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. The group believes these sometimes include genuine sayings or concepts but are largely the product of the early Christian community.
Table fellowship[edit]
Open table fellowship with outsiders was central to Jesus' ministry.[19] His practice of eating with the lowly people that he healed defied the expectations of traditional Jewish society.[19] He presumably taught at the meal, as would be expected in a symposium.[70] His conduct caused enough of a scandal that he was accused of being a glutton and a drunk.[70]
John Dominic Crossan identifies this table practice as part of Jesus' radical egalitarian program.[19] The importance of table fellowship is seen in the prevalence of meal scenes in early Christian art[19] and in the Eucharist, the Christian ritual of bread and wine.[70]
Disciples[edit]
Main article: Disciple (Christianity)
Jesus recruited twelve Galilean peasants as his inner circle, including several fishermen.[90] The fishermen in question and the tax collector Matthew would have business dealings requiring some knowledge of Greek.[91] The father of two of the fishermen is represented as having the means to hire labourers for his fishing business, and tax collectors were seen as exploiters.[92] The twelve were expected to rule the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingdom of God.[90]
The disciples of Jesus play a large role in the search for the historical Jesus. However, the four Gospels, use different words to apply to Jesus' followers. The Greek word "ochloi" refers to the crowds who gathered around Jesus as he preached. The word "mathetes" refers to the followers who stuck around for more teaching. The word "apostolos" refers to the twelve disciples, or apostles, whom Jesus chose specifically to be his close followers. With these three categories of followers, Meier uses a model of concentric circles around Jesus, with an inner circle of true disciples, a larger circle of followers, and an even larger circle of those who gathered to listen to him.
Jesus controversially accepted women and sinners (those who violated purity laws) among his followers. Even though women were never directly called "disciples", certain passages in the Gospels seem to indicate that women followers of Jesus were equivalent to the disciples. It was possible for members of the "ochloi" to cross over into the "mathetes" category. However, Meier argues that some people from the "mathetes" category actually crossed into the "apostolos" category, namely Mary Magdalene. The narration of Jesus' death and the events that accompany it mention the presence of women. Meier states that the pivotal role of the women at the cross is revealed in the subsequent narrative, where at least some of the women, notably Mary Magdalene, witnessed both the burial of Jesus (Mark 15:47) and discovered the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8). Luke also mentions that as Jesus and the Twelve were travelling from city to city preaching the "good news", they were accompanied by women, who provided for them out of their own means. We can conclude that women did follow Jesus a considerable length of time during his Galilean ministry and his last journey to Jerusalem. Such a devoted, long-term following could not occur without the initiative or active acceptance of the women who followed him. However, most scholars would argue that it is unreasonable to say that Mary Magdalene's seemingly close relationship with Jesus suggests that she was a disciple of Jesus or one of the Twelve.[citation needed] In name, the women are not historically considered "disciples" of Jesus, but the fact that he allowed them to follow and serve him proves that they were to some extent treated as disciples.
The Gospels recount Jesus commissioning disciples to spread the word, sometimes during his life (e.g., Mark 6:7-12) and sometimes during a resurrection appearance (e.g., Matthew 28:18-20). These accounts reflect early Christian practice as well as Jesus' original instructions, though some scholars contend that historical Jesus issued no such missionary commission.[93]
According to John Dominic Crossan, Jesus sent his disciples out to heal and to proclaim the Kingdom of God. They were to eat with those they healed rather than with higher status people who might well be honored to host a healer, and Jesus directed them to eat whatever was offered them. This implicit challenge to the social hierarchy was part of Jesus' program of radical egalitarianism. These themes of healing and eating are common in early Christian art.[19]
Jesus' instructions to the missionaries appear in the synoptic Gospels and in the Gospel of Thomas.[19] These instructions are distinct from the commission that the resurrected Jesus gives to his followers, the Great Commission, text rated as black (inauthentic) by the Jesus Seminar.[94]
Asceticism[edit]
See also: Evangelical counsels
The fellows of the Jesus Seminar mostly held that Jesus was not an ascetic, and that he probably drank wine and did not fast, other than as all observant Jews did.[95] He did, however, promote a simple life and the renunciation of wealth.
Jesus said that some made themselves "eunuchs" for the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:12). This aphorism might have been meant to establish solidarity with eunuchs, who were considered "incomplete" in Jewish society.[96] Alternatively, he may have been promoting celibacy.
Some[who?] suggest that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, or that he probably had a special relationship with her,[97] or that he was married to Mary the sister of Lazarus.[citation needed] However, Ehrman notes the conjectural nature of these claims as "not a single one of our ancient sources indicates that Jesus was married, let alone married to Mary Magdalene."[98]
John the Baptist was an ascetic and perhaps a Nazirite, who promoted celibacy like the Essenes.[99] Ascetic elements, such as fasting, appeared in Early Christianity and are mentioned by Matthew during Jesus' discourse on ostentation.
Jerusalem[edit]
The narrow streets of Via Dolorosa, Jerusalem.
See also: Jerusalem in Christianity
Jesus and his followers left Galilee and traveled to Jerusalem in Judea. They may have traveled through Samaria as reported in John, or around the border of Samaria as reported in Luke, as was common practice for Jews avoiding hostile Samaritans. Jerusalem was packed with Jews who had come for Passover, perhaps comprising 300,000 to 400,000 pilgrims.[100]
Entrance to Jerusalem[edit]
Main article: Palm Sunday
Jesus might have entered Jerusalem on a donkey as a symbolic act, possibly to contrast with the triumphant entry that a Roman conqueror would make, or to enact a prophecy in Zechariah. Christian scripture makes the reference to Zechariah explicit, perhaps because the scene was invented as scribes looked to scripture to help them flesh out the details of the gospel narratives.[70]
Temple disturbance[edit]
Main article: Jesus and the Money Changers
Jesus taught in Jerusalem, and he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[70] In response, the temple authorities arrested him and turned him over to the Roman authorities for execution.[70] He might have been betrayed into the hands of the temple police, but Funk suggests the authorities might have arrested him with no need for a traitor.[70]
Crucifixion[edit]
Antonio Ciseri's 1862 depiction of Ecce Homo, as Pontius Pilate delivers Jesus to the crowd
Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Iudaea province (26 AD to 36 AD). Some scholars suggest that Pilate executed Jesus as a public nuisance, perhaps with the cooperation of the Jewish authorities.[70] E. P. Sanders argued that the cleansing of the Temple was an act that seriously offended his Jewish audience and eventually led to his death,[101][102][103] while Bart D. Ehrman argued that Jesus' actions would have been considered treasonous and thus a capital offense by the Romans.[104] The claim that the Sadducee high-priestly leaders and their associates handed Jesus over to the Romans is strongly attested.[69] Historians debate whether Jesus intended to be crucified.[105]
The Jesus Seminar argued that Christian scribes seem to have drawn on scripture in order to flesh out the passion narrative, such as inventing Jesus' trial.[70] However, scholars are split on the historicity of the underlying events.[106]
John Dominic Crossan points to the use of the word "kingdom" in his central teachings of the "Kingdom of God," which alone would have brought Jesus to the attention of Roman authority. Rome dealt with Jesus as it commonly did with essentially non-violent dissension: the killing of its leader. It was usually violent uprisings such as those during the Roman-Jewish Wars that warranted the slaughter of leader and followers. As the balance shifted in the early Church from the Jewish community to Gentile converts, it may have sought to distance itself from rebellious Jews (those who rose up against the Roman occupation). There was also a schism developing within the Jewish community as these believers in Jesus were pushed out of the synagogues after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, see Council of Jamnia. The divergent accounts of Jewish involvement in the trial of Jesus suggest some of the unfavorable sentiments between such Jews that resulted. See also List of events in early Christianity.
Pietro Perugino, Crucifixion of Christ, 1494-1496, Florence
Aside from the fact that the Gospels provide different accounts of the Jewish role in Jesus's death (for example, Mark and Matthew report two separate trials, Luke one, and John none), Fredriksen, like other scholars (see Catchpole 1971) argues that many elements of the gospel accounts could not possibly have happened: according to Jewish law, the court could not meet at night; it could not meet on a major holiday; Jesus's statements to the Sanhedrin or the High Priest (e.g. that he was the messiah) did not constitute blasphemy; the charges that the Gospels purport the Jews to have made against Jesus were not capital crimes against Jewish law; even if Jesus had been accused and found guilty of a capital offense by the Sanhedrin, the punishment would have been death by stoning (the fates of Saint Stephen and James the Just for example) and not crucifixion. This necessarily assumes that the Jewish leaders were scrupulously obedient to Roman law, and never broke their own laws, customs or traditions even for their own advantage. In response, it has been argued that the legal circumstances surrounding the trial have not been well understood,[107] and that Jewish leaders were not always strictly obedient, either to Roman law or to their own.[108] Furthermore, talk of a restoration of the Jewish monarchy was seditious under Roman occupation. Further, Jesus would have entered Jerusalem at an especially risky time, during Passover, when popular emotions were running high. Although most Jews did not have the means to travel to Jerusalem for every holiday, virtually all tried to comply with these laws as best they could. And during these festivals, such as the Passover, the population of Jerusalem would swell, and outbreaks of violence were common. Scholars suggest that the High Priest feared that Jesus' talk of an imminent restoration of an independent Jewish state might spark a riot. Maintaining the peace was one of the primary jobs of the Roman-appointed High Priest, who was personally responsible to them for any major outbreak. Scholars therefore argue that he would have arrested Jesus for promoting sedition and rebellion, and turned him over to the Romans for punishment.
Both the gospel accounts and [the] Pauline interpolation [found at 1 Thes 2:14-16] were composed in the period immediately following the terrible war of 66-73. The Church had every reason to assure prospective Gentile audiences that the Christian movement neither threatened nor challenged imperial sovereignty, despite the fact that their founder had himself been crucified, that is, executed as a rebel.[109]
However, Paul's preaching of the Gospel and its radical social practices were by their very definition a direct affront to the social hierarchy of Greco-Roman society itself, and thus these new teachings undermined the Empire, ultimately leading to full scale Roman persecution of Christians aimed at stamping out the new faith.
Burial and Empty Tomb[edit]
Some scholars are split on whether Jesus was buried. Craig A. Evans contends that, "the literary, historical and archaeological evidence points in one direction: that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb, according to Jewish custom."[110] John Dominic Crossan, based on his unique position that the Gospel of Peter contains the oldest primary source about Jesus, argued that the burial accounts become progressively extravagant and thus found it historically unlikely that an enemy would release a corpse, contending that Jesus' followers did not have the means to know what happened to Jesus' body.[111] Crossan's position on the Gospel of Peter has not found scholarly support,[112] from Meyer's description of it as "eccentric and implausible",[113] to Koester's critique of it as "seriously flawed".[114] Habermas argued against Crossan, stating that the response of Jewish authorities against Christian claims for the resurrection presupposed a burial and empty tomb,[115] and he observed the discovery of the body of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol, a man who died by crucifixion in the first century and was discovered at a burial site outside ancient Jerusalem in an ossuary, arguing that this find revealed important facts about crucifixion and burial in first century Palestine.[116] Other scholars consider the burial by Joseph of Arimathea found in Mark 15 to be historically probable,[117] and some have gone on to argue that the tomb was thereafter discovered empty.[118] More positively, Mark Waterman maintains the Empty Tomb priority over the Appearances.[119] Michael Grant wrote:
[I]f we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.[120]
However, Marcus Borg notes:
the first reference to the empty tomb story is rather odd: Mark, writing around 70 CE, tells us that some women found the tomb empty but told no one about it. Some scholars think this indicates that the story of the empty tomb is a late development and that the way Mark tells it explains why it was not widely (or previously) known[121]
Likewise, scholars Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz conclude that "the empty tomb can only be illuminated by the Easter faith (which is based on appearances); the Easter faith cannot be illuminated by the empty tomb."[122]
Resurrection appearances[edit]
Main article: Resurrection appearances of Jesus
The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio (16th century), depicts the resurrected Jesus.
Peter, Paul, and Mary apparently had visionary experiences of a risen Jesus.[70] Paul recorded his vision in an epistle and lists other reported appearances. The original Mark reports Jesus' empty tomb, and the later Gospels and later endings to Mark narrate various resurrection appearances.
The two oldest manuscripts (4th century) of Mark, the earliest Gospel, break off at 16:8 stating that the women came and found an empty tomb "and they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid". (Mk 16:8) The passages stating that he had been seen by Mary Magdelene and the eleven disciples (Mk 16:9-20) were added only later, and the hypothetical original ending was lost. Scholars have put forth a number of theories concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. The Jesus Seminar concluded: "In the view of the Seminar, he did not rise bodily from the dead; the resurrection is based instead on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary."[123] E.P. Sanders argues for the difficulty of accusing the early witnesses of any deliberate fraud:
It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud. 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. Moreover, some of the witnesses of the Resurrection would give their lives for their belief. This also makes fraud unlikely.[124]
Most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection a non-historical question but instead a philosophical or theological question.[125]
Methods of research[edit]
See also: Quest for the historical Jesus
Albert Schweitzer, whose book coined the term Quest for the historical Jesus
In the early church, there were already tendencies to portray Jesus as a verifiable demonstration of the extraordinary.[126][127] Since the 18th century, scholars have taken part in three separate "quests" for the historical Jesus, attempting to reconstruct various portraits of his life using historical methods.[21][128] While textual criticism (or lower criticism) had been practiced for centuries, a number of approaches to historical analysis and a number of criteria for evaluating the historicity of events emerged as of the 18th century, as a series of "Quests for the historical Jesus" took place. At each stage of development, scholars suggested specific forms and methodologies of analysis and specific criteria to be used to determine historical validity.[129]
The first Quest, which started in 1778, was almost entirely based on biblical criticism. This was supplemented with form criticism in 1919 and redaction criticism in 1948.[129] Form criticism began as an attempt to trace the history of the biblical material before it was written down, and may thus be seen as starting when textual criticism ends.[130] Form criticism looks for patterns within units of biblical text and attempts to trace their origin based on the patterns.[130] Redaction criticism may be viewed as the child of text criticism and form criticism.[131] This approach views an author as a "redactor" i.e. someone preparing a report, and tries to understand how the redactor(s) has molded the narrative to express their own perspectives.[131]
At the end of the first Quest (c. 1906) the criterion for multiple attestation was used and was the major additional element up to 1950s.[129] The concept behind multiple attestation is simple: as the number of independent sources that vouch for an event increases, confidence in the historical authenticity of the event rises.[129]
Other criteria were being developed at the same time, e.g. "double dissimilarity" in 1913, "least distinctiveness" in 1919 and "coherence and consistency" in 1921.[129] The criterion of double dissimilarity views a reported saying or action of Jesus as possibly authentic, if it is dissimilar from both the Judaism of his time and also from the traditions of the early Christianity that immediately followed him.[132] The least distinctiveness criterion relies on the assumption that when stories are passed from person to person, the peripheral, least distinct elements may be distorted, but the central element remains unchanged.[133] The criterion of "coherence and consistency" states that material can be used only when other material has been identified as authentic to corroborate it.[129]
The second Quest was launched in 1953, and along with it the criterion of embarrassment was introduced.[129] This criterion states that a group is unlikely to invent a story that would be embarrassing to themselves.[129] The criterion of "historical plausibility" was introduced in 1997, after the start of the third Quest in 1988.[129] This principle analyzes the plausibility of an event in two separate components: contextual plausibility and consequential plausibility, i.e. the historical context needs to be suitable, as well as the consequences.[129]
A new characteristic of the modern aspects of the third quest has been the role of archaeology and James Charlesworth states that few modern scholars now want to overlook the archaeological discoveries that clarify the nature of life in Galilee and Judea during the time of Jesus.[134] A further characteristic of the third quest has been its interdisciplinary and global nature of the scholarship.[135] While the first two quests was mostly by European Protestant theologians, the third quest has seen a worldwide influx of scholars from multiple disciplines.[135]
More recently historicists have focussed their attention on the historical writings associated with the period in which Jesus lived[136][137] or on the evidence concerning his family.[138][139][140] The redaction of these documents through early Christian sources till the 3rd or 4th centuries has also been a rich source of new information.
Criticism of Jesus research methods[edit]
A number of scholars have criticised Historical Jesus research for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, and some have argued that modern biblical scholarship is insufficiently critical and sometimes amounts to covert apologetics.[141][142]
Theological bias[edit]
John Meier, a Catholic priest and a professor of theology at University of Notre Dame, has stated "... I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed ..."[143] Meier also wrote that in the past the quest for the historical Jesus has often been motivated more by a desire to produce an alternate Christology than a true historical search.[28]
The British Methodist scholar Clive Marsh[144] has stated that the construction of the portraits of Jesus as part of various quests have often been driven by "specific agendas" and that historical components of the relevant biblical texts are often interpreted to fit specific goals.[29] Marsh lists theological agendas that aim to confirm the divinity of Jesus, anti-ecclesiastical agendas that aim to discredit Christianity and political agendas that aim to interpret the teachings of Jesus with the hope of causing social change.[29][145]
The New Testament scholar Nicholas Perrin has argued that since most biblical scholars are Christians, a certain bias is inevitable, but he does not see this as a major problem.[146][147]
Lack of methodological soundness[edit]
The historical analysis techniques used by biblical scholars have been questioned,[27][28][29] and according to James Dunn it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus."[148][149][150]
W.R. Herzog has stated that "What we call the historical Jesus is the composite of the recoverable bits and pieces of historical information and speculation about him that we assemble, construct, and reconstruct. For this reason, the historical Jesus is, in Meier's words, 'a modern abstraction and construct.'"[151]
Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen's University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians attempting to reconstruct a biography of the man apart from the mere facts of his existence and crucifixion have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions, which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also identifies a peculiar downward dating creep, and holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty. He says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, more than any other group in present day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work. It is only through considerable individual heroism, that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work.[152][153]
Dale Allison, a Presbyterian theologian and professor of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, says, "... We wield our criteria to get what we want ..."[27]
According to James Dunn, "...the 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history."[154] (Emphasis in the original). Dunn further explains that "the facts are not to be identified as data; they are always an interpretation of the data.[155]
Since Albert Schweitzer's book The Quest of the Historical Jesus, scholars have for long stated that many of the portraits of Jesus are "pale reflections of the researchers" themselves.[23][156][157] Albert Schweitzer accused early scholars of religious bias. John Dominic Crossan summarized the recent situation by stating that many authors writing about the life of Jesus "... do autobiography and call it biography."[23][158]
Scarcity of sources[edit]
Bart Ehrman and separately Andreas Köstenberger contend that given the scarcity of historical sources, it is generally difficult for any scholar to construct a portrait of Jesus that can be considered historically valid beyond the basic elements of his life.[159][160] On the other hand, scholars such as N. T. Wright and Luke Timothy Johnson argue that the image of Jesus presented in the gospels is largely accurate, and that dissenting scholars are simply too cautious about what we can claim to know about the ancient period.[125]
Myth theory[edit]
Main article: Christ myth theory
The Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.[161] Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century: that the New Testament has no historical value, that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots.[162]
In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this subject. Some "mythicists" say that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional.[163][164][165]
The scholarly consensus is that the Christ myth theory has been refuted, and that Jesus indeed existed as a historical figure.[166]
See also[edit]
Academic approachBiblical archaeology
Biblical criticism
Biblical manuscript
Census of Quirinius, the enrollment of the Roman provinces of Syria and Judaea for tax purposes taken in the year 6/7.
Criterion of dissimilarity
Criticism of the Bible
Historical background of the New Testament
Historicity of Jesus Sources for the historicity of Jesus
Historicity of the Bible
Jesus Seminar
Christian approachChronology of Jesus
Detailed Christian timeline
Gospel harmony
Life of Jesus in the New Testament
Ministry of Jesus
Associated sitesÆnon
Al Maghtas
Bethabara
New Testament places associated with Jesus
Qasr el Yahud
Notes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d e The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 page 5
2.^ Jump up to: a b c Jesus Research: An International Perspective (Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus) by James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorny (Sep 15, 2009) ISBN 0802863531 pages 1-2
3.Jump up ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by Frank Leslie Cross, Elizabeth A. Livingstone, p 779, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=fUqcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA779&dq=Historical+Jesus,+Quest+of+the.%22+Oxford+Dictionary+of+the+Christian+Church&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZPszVN7tN4XEPbyzgMAO&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Historical%20Jesus%2C%20Quest%20of%20the.%22%20Oxford%20Dictionary%20of%20the%20Christian%20Church&f=false
4.Jump up ^ Amy-Jill Levine in the The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. 2006 Princeton Univ Press ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 pages 1-2
5.Jump up ^ Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman (Sep 23, 1999) ISBN 0195124731 Oxford University Press pp. ix-xi
6.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-515462-2, chapters 13, 15
7.^ Jump up to: a b In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
8.Jump up ^ Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61
9.^ Jump up to: a b Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
10.^ Jump up to: a b Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
11.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
12.Jump up ^ Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1-6
13.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
14.^ Jump up to: a b c Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 pages 168–173
15.^ Jump up to: a b c Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993.
16.Jump up ^ John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life. Lion Hudson 2009, pp. 138-9.
17.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 10. Jesus as healer: the miracles of Jesus.
18.^ Jump up to: a b c d Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition)
19.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998.
20.Jump up ^ E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. p.280
21.^ Jump up to: a b c The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth by Ben Witherington (May 8, 1997) ISBN 0830815449 pages 9-13
22.^ Jump up to: a b Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell (1 Jan 1999) ISBN 0664257038 pages 19-23
23.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 pages 124-125
24.^ Jump up to: a b c d The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1 by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young (Feb 20, 2006) ISBN 0521812399 page 23
25.^ Jump up to: a b Images of Christ (Academic Paperback) by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes and David Tombs (Dec 19, 2004) ISBN 0567044602 T&T Clark page 74
26.^ Jump up to: a b Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth by Michael James McClymond (Mar 22, 2004) ISBN 0802826806 pages 16-22
27.^ Jump up to: a b c Allison, Dale (February 2009). The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-8028-6262-4. Retrieved Jan 9, 2011. "We wield our criteria to get what we want."
28.^ Jump up to: a b c John P. Meier (26 May 2009). A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Law and Love. Yale University Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-0-300-14096-5. Retrieved 27 August 2010.
29.^ Jump up to: a b c d Clive Marsh, "Diverse Agendas at Work in the Jesus Quest" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus by Tom Holmen and Stanley E. Porter (Jan 12, 2011) ISBN 9004163727 pages 986-1002
30.Jump up ^ John P. Meier "Criteria: How do we decide what comes from Jesus?" in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight (Jul 15, 2006) ISBN 1575061007 page 124 "Since in the quest for the historical Jesus almost anything is possible, the function of the criteria is to pass from the merely possible to the really probable, to inspect various probabilities, and to decide which candidate is most probable. Ordinarily the criteria can not hope to do more."
31.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus of the Gospels by Craig S. Keener (13 Apr 2012) ISBN 0802868886 page 163
32.Jump up ^ Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship by Marcus J. Borg (1 Aug 1994) ISBN 1563380943 pages 4-6
33.Jump up ^ Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
34.Jump up ^ James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
35.Jump up ^ The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, p. 145: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".
36.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0-86012-006-6 pages 730-731
37.Jump up ^ Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9-page 15
38.Jump up ^ "What about the resurrection? ... Some people believe it did, some believe it didn't. ... But if you do believe it, it is not as a historian" Ehrman, B. Jesus, Interrupted, pg 176 HarperOne; 1 Reprint edition (2 February 2010)
39.Jump up ^ Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 page 181
40.^ Jump up to: a b Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 ISBN 0-8054-4482-3 pages 431-436
41.Jump up ^ Van Voorst (2000) pp. 39-53
42.Jump up ^ Schreckenberg, Heinz; Kurt Schubert (1992). Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature. ISBN 90-232-2653-4.
43.Jump up ^ Kostenberger, Andreas J.; L. Scott Kellum; Charles L. Quarles (2009). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. ISBN 0-8054-4365-7.
44.Jump up ^ The new complete works of Josephus by Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, Paul L. Maier ISBN 0-8254-2924-2 pages 662-663
45.Jump up ^ Josephus XX by Louis H. Feldman 1965, ISBN 0674995023 page 496
46.Jump up ^ Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence ISBN 0-8028-4368-9. page 83
47.Jump up ^ Flavius Josephus; Maier, Paul L. (December 1995). Josephus, the essential works: a condensation of Jewish antiquities and The Jewish war ISBN 978-0-8254-3260-6 pages 284-285
48.Jump up ^ P.E. Easterling, E. J. Kenney (general editors), The Cambridge History of Latin Literature, page 892 (Cambridge University Press, 1982, reprinted 1996). ISBN 0-521-21043-7
49.^ Jump up to: a b Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000. p 39- 53
50.Jump up ^ Eddy, Paul; Boyd, Gregory (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127
51.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce,Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) p. 23
52.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998). The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-8006-3122-2.
53.Jump up ^ The Case Against Christianity, By Michael Martin, pg 50-51, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=wWkC4dTmK0AC&pg=PA52&dq=historicity+of+jesus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o-_8U5-yEtTH7AbBpoCoAg&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=tacitus&f=false
54.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900-1950, By Walter P. Weaver, pg 53, pg 57, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=1CZbuFBdAMUC&pg=PA45&dq=historicity+of+jesus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o-_8U5-yEtTH7AbBpoCoAg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=tacitus&f=false
55.^ Jump up to: a b Secret of Regeneration, By Hilton Hotema, pg 100, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=jCaopp3R5B0C&pg=PA100&dq=interpolations+in+tacitus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CRf-U9-VGZCe7AbxrIDQCA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=interpolations%20in%20tacitus&f=false
56.Jump up ^ Jesus, University Books, New York, 1956, p.13
57.Jump up ^ France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing. pp. 19–20. ISBN 0-340-38172-8.
58.Jump up ^ Schachter/H.Freedman, Jacob. "Sanhedrin". come-and-hear.com. The Soncino Press. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
59.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 1. The quest of the historical Jesus. p. 1–15.
60.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Chapter 15, Jesus' view of his role in God's plan.
61.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The gospel of Jesus: according to the Jesus Seminar. HarperSanFrancisco. 1999.
62.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond E. et al. (1990). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-614934-0.
63.Jump up ^ Vermes, Geza Jesus the Jew, Fortress Press, New York 1981. p.209
64.Jump up ^ Paolo Flores d'Arcais, MicroMega 3/2007, p.43
65.Jump up ^ Dunn, James D. G.; McKnight, Scot (2005). The historical Jesus in recent research Volume 10 of Sources for biblical and theological study. Eisenbrauns (EISENBRAUNS). p. 325. ISBN 1575061007.
66.Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "John" p. 302-310
67.Jump up ^ "[T]here is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition." in "Does the New Testament call Jesus God?" in Theological Studies, 26, (1965) p. 545-73
68.Jump up ^ John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, page 27: "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate."; Gerd Lüdemann, "An Embarrassing Misrepresentation", Free Inquiry, October / November 2007: "the broad consensus of modern New Testament scholars that the proclamation of Jesus' exalted nature was in large measure the creation of the earliest Christian communities."
69.^ Jump up to: a b "Jesus Christ." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
70.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998.
71.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. p. 146
72.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. John the Baptist cameo. p. 268
73.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. p. 178
74.Jump up ^ See Matthew 11:7-10. Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. p. 146
75.Jump up ^ Mark 6:14, 16, 8:28
76.Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "The Historical Jesus" p. 255-260
77.Jump up ^ following the conclusion of Josephus' Antiquities 18.5: "Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late."
78.Jump up ^ Mark 7:24-30
79.Jump up ^ Introduction. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993.
80.Jump up ^ First: 2:13 and 2:23; second: 6:4; third: 11:55, 12:1, 13:1, 18:29, 18:39, 19:14
81.Jump up ^ Richard L. Niswonger, New Testament History, Zondervan, 1993, p. 152
82.Jump up ^ Geoffrey W. Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: A-D, Wm. B. Eerdmans 1995 p. 682
83.Jump up ^ The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006 p. 162
84.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford. 1999. page 127.
85.Jump up ^ Geza Vermes. The Authentic Gospels of Jesus. Penguin, 2003. p. 381.
86.Jump up ^ E. P. Sanders. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. p. 178
87.^ Jump up to: a b Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "God's Imperial Rule: Present or Future," p 136-137.
88.^ Jump up to: a b c Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. Introduction, p 1-30.
89.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. pp. 103-104.
90.^ Jump up to: a b Ehrman, Bart. Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. Oxford University Press, USA. 2006. ISBN 0-19-530013-0
91.Jump up ^ Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans, Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (BRILL, 1998 ISBN 9004111425, 9789004111424), p. 136
92.Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus for Dummies 2007 ISBN 0470167858, 9780470167854, p. 23
93.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Mark," p 39-127.
94.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993.
95.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 221.
96.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 220.
97.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 221.
98.Jump up ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Fact and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code p.144
99.Jump up ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Essenes: "The similarity in many respects between Christianity and Essenism is striking: There were the same communism (Acts iv. 34-35); the same belief in baptism or bathing, and in the power of prophecy; the same aversion to marriage, enhanced by firmer belief in the Messianic advent; the same system of organization, and the same rules for the traveling brethren delegated to charity-work (see Apostle and Apostleship); and, above all, the same love-feasts or brotherly meals (comp. Agape; Didascalia)."
100.Jump up ^ Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. p. 249
101.Jump up ^ Sanders 1987, p.[citation needed]
102.Jump up ^ The Jesus Seminar concurs that the temple incident led to Jesus' execution.
103.Jump up ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church reports that "it is possible" that the temple disturbance led to Jesus' arrest, offers no alternative reason, and states more generally that a political rather than religious motivation was likely behind it. "Jesus Christ." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
104.Jump up ^ Ehrman 1999, p. 221-3
105.Jump up ^ Are You the One? The Textual Dynamics of Messianic Self-Identity
106.Jump up ^ Brown 1993, vol. 1, p. 711-12; Funk 1998, p. 152-3
107.Jump up ^ Barrett, CK 'The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes', Westminster John Knox Press, 1978, page 49, 'The alleged contraventions of Jewish law seem to rest upon misunderstandings of Jewish texts'
108.Jump up ^ Barrett, CK 'The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes', Westminster John Knox Press, 1978, pp. 49-50, 'The explanation is that special circumstances were regularly allowed to modify the course of the law. For example, Simeon b. Shetah (fl. 104-69 B.C.) caused to be hanged 80 women (witches) in one day, though it was against the law to judge more than two. 'The hour demanded it' (Sanhedrin 6.4, Y. Sanhedrin 6,235c,58). Nisan 15, so far from being an unlikely day, was one of the best possible days for the execution of Jesus. The regulation for the condemnation of a 'rebellious teacher' runs: 'He was kept in guard until one of the Feasts (passover, Pentecost, or Tabernacles) and he was put to death on one of the Feasts, for it is written, And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously (Deuteronomy 17.13)' (Sanhedrin 11.4). There was only one day on which 'all the people' were gathered together in Jerusalem for the Passover; it was Nisan 15, the Marcan date for the crucifixion.'
109.Jump up ^ Fredriksen, Paula. (2000) From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ. Second Edition. Yale University Press. p. 122 ISBN 0300084579
110.Jump up ^ Craig A. Evans, "The Silence of Burial" in Jesus, the Final Days Ed. Troy A. Miller. p.68
111.Jump up ^ Crossan 1994, p. 154-158; cf. Ehrman 1999, p.229
112.Jump up ^ N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), p. 49; who wrote "[Crossan's hypothesis] has not been accepted yet by any other serious scholar."
113.Jump up ^ Ben Meyer, critical notice of The Historical Jesus, by John Dominic Crossan, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 575
114.Jump up ^ Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (London: SCM, 1990), p. 220.
115.Jump up ^ G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, (College Press, 1996) p. 128; he observed that the Jewish polemic is recorded in Matthew 28:11-15 and was employed through the second century, cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 108; Tertullian, On Spectacles, 30
116.Jump up ^ G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, (College Press, 1996) p. 173; cf. Vasilius Tzaferis, "Jewish Tombs At and Near Giv'at ha-Mivtar", Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970) pp. 38-59".
117.Jump up ^ Brown 1993, vol. 2, ch. 46
118.Jump up ^ e.g. Paul L. Maier, "The Empty Tomb as History", in Christianity Today, March, 1975, p. 5
119.Jump up ^ Mark W. Waterman, The Empty Tomb Tradition of Mark: Text, History, and Theological Struggles (Los Angeles: Agathos Press, 2006) p. 211-212
120.Jump up ^ M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner's, 1977) p. 176
121.Jump up ^ Borg, Marcus J. "Thinking About Easter" Bible Review. April 1994, p. 15 and 49
122.Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd; and Merz, Annette. The historical Jesus: A comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1998. Tr from German (1996 edition). p. 503. ISBN 978-0-8006-3123-9
123.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. A Polebridge Press Book from Harper San Francisco. ISBN 0-06-062978-9.
124.Jump up ^ "Jesus Christ." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 10 Jan. 2007
125.^ Jump up to: a b Meier 1994 v.2 ch. 17; Ehrman 1999 p.227-8
126.Jump up ^ Georgi, Dieter (1986). The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.
127.Jump up ^ Georgi, Dieter (1991). Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
128.Jump up ^ The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 pages 1-6
129.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 pages 100-120
130.^ Jump up to: a b The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology by Alan Richardson 1983 ISBN 0664227481 pages 215-216
131.^ Jump up to: a b Interpreting the New Testament by Daniel J. Harrington (Jun 1990) ISBN 0814651240 pages 96-98
132.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q by Brian Han Gregg (30 Jun 2006) ISBN 3161487508 page 29
133.Jump up ^ Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 pages 77-78
134.Jump up ^ "Jesus Research and Archaeology: A New Perspective" by James H. Charlesworth in Jesus and archaeology edited by James H. Charlesworth 2006 ISBN 0-8028-4880-X pages 11-15
135.^ Jump up to: a b Soundings in the Religion of Jesus: Perspectives and Methods in Jewish and Christian Scholarship by Bruce Chilton Anthony Le Donne and Jacob Neusner 2012 ISBN 0800698010 page 132
136.Jump up ^ Mason, Steve (2002), "Josephus and the New Testament" (Baker Academic)
137.Jump up ^ Tabor, James (2012)"Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity" (Simon & Schuster)
138.Jump up ^ Eisenman, Robert (1998), "James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls" (Watkins)
139.Jump up ^ Butz, Jeffrey "The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity" (Inner Traditions)
140.Jump up ^ Tabor, James (2007), "The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity"
141.Jump up ^ "Introducing the Journal of Higher Criticism".
142.Jump up ^ Hendel, Ronald (June 2010). "Knowledge and Power in Biblical Scholarship". Retrieved 2011-01-06. "... The problem at hand is how to preserve the critical study of the Bible in a professional society that has lowered its standards to the degree that apologetics passes as scholarship ..."
143.Jump up ^ Meier, John. "Finding the Historical Jesus: An Interview With John P. Meier". St. Anthony Messenger. Retrieved Jan 6, 2011. "... I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed."
144.Jump up ^ "Biography Clive Marsh".
145.Jump up ^ Clive Marsh "Quests of the Historical Jesus in New Historicist Perspective" in Biblical Interpretation Journal Volume 5, Number 4, 1997 , pp. 403-437(35)
146.Jump up ^ "Jesus is His Own Ideology: An Interview with Nick Perrin"."My point in the book is to disabuse readers of the notion that Jesus scholars are scientists wearing white lab coats. Like everyone else, they want certain things to be true about Jesus and equally want certain others not to be true of him. I’m included in this (I really hope that I am right in believing that Jesus is both Messiah and Lord.) Will this shape my scholarship? Absolutely. How can it not? We should be okay with that."
147.Jump up ^ McKnight, Scot (April 9, 2010). "The Jesus We'll Never Know". Retrieved Jan 15, 2011. "One has to wonder if the driving force behind much historical Jesus scholarship is ... a historian's genuine (and disinterested) interest in what really happened. The theological conclusions of those who pursue the historical Jesus simply correlate too strongly with their own theological predilections to suggest otherwise."
148.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered Volume 1, by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 pp. 125-126: "the historical Jesus is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data supplied by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then," (the Jesus of Nazareth who walked the hills of Galilee), "and not a figure in history whom we can realistically use to critique the portrayal of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition."
149.Jump up ^ Meir, Marginal Jew, 1:21-25
150.Jump up ^ T. Merrigan, The Historical Jesus in the Pluralist Theology of Religions, in The Myriad Christ: Plurality and the Quest for Unity in Contemporary Christology (ed. T. Merrigan and J. Haers). Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, & Charlesworth, J. H. Jesus research: New methodologies and perceptions : the second Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007, p. 77-78: "Dunn points out as well that 'the Enlightenment Ideal of historical objectivity also projected a false goal onto the quest for the historical Jesus,' which implied that there was a 'historical Jesus,' objectively verifiable, 'who will be different from the dogmatic Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels and who will enable us to criticize the dogmatic Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels.' (Jesus Remembered, p. 125)."
151.Jump up ^ Herzog, W. R. (2005). Prophet and teacher: An introduction to the historical Jesus. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 6
152.Jump up ^ Akenson, Donald (1998). Surpassing wonder: the invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. University of Chicago Press. pp. 539–555. ISBN 978-0-226-01073-1. Retrieved Jan 8, 2011. "... The point I shall argue below is that, the agreed evidentiary practices of the historians of Yeshua, despite their best efforts, have not been those of sound historical practice ..."
153.Jump up ^ "Queen's University:Department of History". Retrieved Jan 22, 2011. "Don Akenson: Professor Irish Studies"
154.Jump up ^ Dunn, James (2003). Christianity In the Making Volume 1: Jesus Remembered. Cambridge, MA: Eermans. p. 126.
155.Jump up ^ Jesus Remembered, by James Dunn; p.102
156.Jump up ^ Jesus the Christ by Walter Kasper (Nov 1976) ISBN page 31
157.Jump up ^ Theological Hermeneutics by Angus Paddison (Jun 6, 2005) ISBN 0521849837 Cambridge Univ Press page 43
158.Jump up ^ The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan (Feb 26, 1993) ISBN 0060616296 page xviii
159.Jump up ^ The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 pages 117–125
160.Jump up ^ Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman 1999 ISBN 0-19-512473-1 pages 22–23
161.Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? Harper Collins, 2012, p. 12, ""In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist . Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." further quoting as authoritative the fuller definition provided by Earl Doherty in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason, 2009, pp. vii–viii: it is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition."
162.Jump up ^ "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
163.Jump up ^ Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. p. 122. ISBN 1-4303-1230-0.
164.Jump up ^ God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
165.Jump up ^ "The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David" Thomas L. Thompson Basic Book Perseus Books' 2005
166.Jump up ^ Did Jesus exist?, Bart Ehrman, 2012, Chapter 1
References[edit]
Barnett, Paul W. (1997). Jesus and the Logic of History (New Studies in Biblical Theology 3). Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-85111-512-8.
Bauckham, Richard (2011). Jesus: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-957527-4.
Brown, Raymond E. (1993). The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the Grave. New York: Anchor Bible. ISBN 0-385-49449-1.
Brown, Raymond E. et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary Prentice Hall 1990 ISBN 0-13-614934-0
Bock, Darrell L., Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods.. Baker Academic: 2002. ISBN 978-0-8010-2451-1.
Craffert, Pieter F. and Botha, Pieter J. J. "Why Jesus Could Walk On The Sea But He Could Not Read And Write". Neotestamenica. 39.1, 2005.
Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus : A Revolutionary Biography. Harpercollins: 1994. ISBN 0-06-061661-X.
Dickson, John. Jesus: A Short Life, Lion Hudson plc, 2008, ISBN 0-8254-7802-2, ISBN 978-0-8254-7802-4, Google Books
Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. New York: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-512473-1.
Fiensy, David A.; Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life, Gorgias Press LLC, 2007, ISBN 1-59333-313-7, ISBN 978-1-59333-313-3, Google books
Fredriksen, Paula (2000). Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-679-76746-6.
Gnilka, Joachim.; Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History, Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.
Gowler, David B.; What Are They Saying About the Historical Jesus?, Paulist Press, 2007,
Grant, Michael. Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's, 1977. ISBN 0-684-14889-7.
Funk, Robert W. (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-062978-9.
Harris, by William V. Ancient Literacy. Harvard University Press: 1989. ISBN 0-674-03380-9.
Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday,
v. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 1991, ISBN 0-385-26425-9v. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 1994, ISBN 0-385-46992-6v. 3, Companions and Competitors, 2001, ISBN 0-385-46993-4v. 4, Law and Love, 2009, ISBN 978-0-300-14096-5O'Collins, G. Jesus: A Portrait. Darton, Longman and Todd: 2008. ISBN 978-0232527193
O'Collins, G. Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. OUP: 2009. ISBN 978-0199557875
Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1987.
Sanders, E.P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Lane The Penguin Press: 1993.
Vermes, G. Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. SCM Classics:2001, ISBN 0-334-02839-6
Theissen, Gerd and Merz, Annette. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3122-6.
Van Voorst, Robert E., Jesus Outside the New Testament, 2000, Eerdmans, google books
Witherington III, Ben. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. InterVarsity Press: 1997. ISBN 0-8308-1544-9.
Wright, N.T. Christian Origins and the Question of God, a projected six volume series of which three have been published under:
v. 1, The New Testament and the People of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1992.;v. 2, Jesus and the Victory of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1997.;v. 3, The Resurrection of the Son of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 2003.Wright, N.T. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is. IVP 1996
Yaghjian, Lucretia. "Ancient Reading", in Richard Rohrbaugh, ed., The Social Sciences in New Testament Interpretation. Hendrickson Publishers: 2004. ISBN 1-56563-410-1.
External links[edit]
"Jesus Christ". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2009. The first section, on Jesus' life and ministry
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Jesus
Commons page
Wikiquote page
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
The Bible and history
Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg
Authority control
WorldCat ·
VIAF: 73945424 ·
LCCN: n79084784 ·
GND: 118557513 ·
BNF: cb124371194 (data) ·
NDL: 00565948
Categories: Jesus and history
Perspectives on Jesus
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Esperanto
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
Nederlands
日本語
Nordfriisk
Plattdüütsch
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 21 June 2015, at 05:56.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Criticism of Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion
By religion
Buddhism ·
Christianity (Catholicism ·
Jehovah's Witnesses ·
Seventh-day Adventist)
·
Protestantism ·
Hinduism ·
Islam (Twelver Islam)
·
Jainism ·
Judaism ·
Mormonism ·
Sikhism
By religious figure
Jesus ·
Moses ·
Muhammad ·
Ellen G. White
By text
Bible ·
Book of Mormon ·
Quran ·
Talmud
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
Giordano Bruno ·
Richard Dawkins ·
Denis Diderot ·
Epicurus ·
Ludwig Feuerbach ·
Stephen Fry ·
Sita Ram Goel ·
Emma Goldman ·
Sam Harris ·
Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
Christopher Hitchens ·
Baron d'Holbach ·
David Hume ·
Robert G. Ingersoll ·
Karl Marx ·
Friedrich Nietzsche ·
Michel Onfray ·
Thomas Paine ·
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
Ayn Rand ·
André Servier ·
David Silverman ·
Max Stirner ·
Bertrand Russell ·
Dayananda Saraswati ·
Victor J. Stenger ·
Voltaire
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
War ·
Buddhism ·
Christianity ·
Islam ·
Judaism ·
Mormonism
Related topics
Abuse ·
Apostasy ·
Crisis of faith ·
Criticism of atheism ·
Criticism of monotheism ·
Persecution ·
Sexuality ·
Slavery
v ·
t ·
e
Jesus of Nazareth is the central figure of Christianity. Christians believe that he was (and still is) divine, while Muslims consider him to have been an important prophet. Since the time in which he is said to have lived, a number of noted individuals have criticised Jesus, some of whom were themselves Christians.
Early critics of Jesus and Christianity included Celsus in the second century and Porphyry in the third.[1][2] In the 19th century, Friedrich Nietzsche was highly critical of Jesus, whose teachings he considered to be "anti-nature" in their treatment of topics such as sexuality. More contemporary notable critics of Jesus include Sita Ram Goel, Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, and Dayananda Saraswati.
Contents [hide]
1 Criticism by Jesus' contemporaries 1.1 Pharisees and scribes
1.2 Magic and exorcism
2 Criticism in Judaism
3 Slavery
4 Criticism by source 4.1 Celsus
4.2 Porphyry of Tyre
4.3 Friedrich Nietzsche
4.4 Dayanand Saraswati
4.5 Bertrand Russell
4.6 Christopher Hitchens
4.7 Sita Ram Goel
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
Criticism by Jesus' contemporaries[edit]
Pharisees and scribes[edit]
The Pharisees and scribes criticized Jesus and his disciples for not observing the Mosaic Law. They criticized his disciples for not washing their hands before eating. (The religious leaders engaged in ceremonial cleansing like washing up to the elbow and baptizing the cups and plates before eating food in them—Mark 7:1-23, Matthew 15:1-20.) Jesus is also criticized for eating with the publicans (Mark 2:15). The Pharisees also criticized Jesus' disciples for gathering grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–3:6).
Magic and exorcism[edit]
In the latter half of the first century and into the second century, Jewish and pagan opponents of Christianity argued that the miracles and exorcisms of Jesus and his followers were the result of magic.[3]
Criticism in Judaism[edit]
Main article: Judaism's view of Jesus
See also: Jesus in the Talmud
Judaism, including Orthodox Judaism, Hareidi Judaism, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, and Reconstructionist Judaism, rejects the idea of Jesus being God, or a person of a Trinity, or a mediator to God. Judaism also holds that Jesus is not the Messiah, arguing that he had not fulfilled the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh nor embodied the personal qualifications of the Messiah. According to Jewish tradition, there were no more prophets after Malachi, who lived centuries before Jesus and delivered his prophesies about 420 BC/BCE.[4][5] Thus Judaism is critical of Jesus' own claims and allusions about his Messiahship and his identification as the "son of God",[6] as presented in the New Testament.
The Mishneh Torah, an authoritative work of Jewish law, provides the last established consensus view of the Jewish community, in Hilkhot Melakhim 11:10–12 that Jesus is a "stumbling block" who makes "the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God".
Even Jesus the Nazarene who imagined that he would be Messiah and was killed by the court, was already prophesied by Daniel. So that it was said, "And the members of the outlaws of your nation would be carried to make a (prophetic) vision stand. And they stumbled."[Dan. 11:14] Because, is there a greater stumbling-block than this one? So that all of the prophets spoke that the Messiah redeems Israel, and saves them, and gathers their banished ones, and strengthens their commandments. And this one caused (nations) to destroy Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them, and to exchange the Torah, and to make the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God. However, the thoughts of the Creator of the world — there is no force in a human to attain them because our ways are not God's ways, and our thoughts not God's thoughts. And all these things of Jesus the Nazarene, and of (Muhammad) the Ishmaelite who stood after him — there is no (purpose) but to straighten out the way for the King Messiah, and to restore all the world to serve God together. So that it is said, "Because then I will turn toward the nations (giving them) a clear lip, to call all of them in the name of God and to serve God (shoulder to shoulder as) one shoulder."[Zeph. 3:9] Look how all the world already becomes full of the things of the Messiah, and the things of the Torah, and the things of the commandments! And these things spread among the far islands and among the many nations uncircumcised of heart.[7]
Slavery[edit]
Avery Robert Dulles held the opinion that "Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social institution", and believes that the writers of the New Testament did not oppose slavery either.[8] In his paper published in Evangelical Quarterly, Kevin Giles notes that Jesus often encountered slavery, "but not one word of criticism did the Lord utter against slavery." Giles points to this fact as being used as an argument that Jesus approved of slavery.[9]
Criticism by source[edit]
Celsus[edit]
Main article: Celsus
Celsus, 2nd-century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity, mounts a wide criticism against Jesus as the founder of the Christian faith.[1] He discounts or disparages Jesus' ancestry, conception, birth, childhood, ministry, death, resurrection, and continuing influence. According to Celsus, Jesus' ancestors came from a Jewish village. His mother was a poor country girl who earned her living by spinning cloth. He worked his miracles by sorcery and was a small, homely man. This Rabbi Jesus kept all Jewish customs, including sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem. He gathered only a few followers and taught them his worst habits, including begging for money. These disciples, amounting to "ten boatmen and a couple of tax collectors" were not respectable. The reports of his resurrection came from a hysterical female, and belief in the resurrection was the result of Jesus' sorcery and the crazed thinking of his followers, all for the purpose of impressing others and increasing the chance for others to become beggars.[10][11]
According to Celsus, Jesus was the inspiration for skulking rebels who deserve persecution.[12]
Celsus stated that Jesus was the bastard child of the Roman soldier Panthera or Pantera.[13] These charges of illegitimacy are the earliest datable statement of the Jewish charge that Jesus was conceived as the result of adultery (see Jesus in the Talmud) and that his true father was a Roman soldier named Panthera. Panthera was a common name among Roman soldiers of that period. The name has some similarity to the Greek adjective parthenos, meaning "virgin".[14][15] The tomb of a Roman soldier named Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera, found in Bad Kreuznach, Germany, is taken by some scholars[16] to refer to the Pantera named by Celsus.
According to Celsus, Jesus had no standing in the Hebrew Bible prophecies and talk of his resurrection was foolishness.[11]
Porphyry of Tyre[edit]
Main article: Porphyry (philosopher)
The Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry of Tyre (c. 232–c. 304) authored the 15 volume treatise Against the Christians, proscribed by the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius II, of which only fragments now survive and were collected by Adolf von Harnack. Selected fragments were published in English translation by J. Stevenson in 1957, of which the following is one example:
Even supposing some Greeks are so foolish as to think that the gods dwell in the statues, even that would be a much purer concept (of religion) than to admit that the Divine Power should descend into the womb of the Virgin Mary, that it became an embryo, and after birth was wrapped in rags, soiled with blood and bile, and even worse.[17][18]
Friedrich Nietzsche[edit]
Nietzsche considered Jesus’ teachings to be "unnatural".
Nietzsche, nineteenth century philosopher, has many criticisms of Jesus and Christianity, even going so far as to style himself as The Anti-Christ. In Human, All Too Human, and Twilight of the Idols for example, Nietzsche accuses the Church's and Jesus' teachings as being anti-natural in their treatment of passions, in particularly sexuality: "There [In the Sermon on the Mount] it is said, for example, with particular reference to sexuality: 'If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out.' Fortunately, no Christian acts in accordance with this precept[19]... the Christian who follows that advice and believes he has killed his sensuality is deceiving himself: it lives on in an uncanny vampire form and torments in repulsive disguises."[20] Nietzsche does explicitly consider Jesus as a mortal, and furthermore as ultimately misguided, the antithesis of a true hero, whom he posits with his concept of a Dionysian hero. Nietzsche was repulsed by Jesus' elevation of the lowly: "Everything pitiful, everything suffering from itself, everything tormented by base feelings, the whole ghetto-world of the soul suddenly on top!"[21]
However Nietzsche did not demur of Jesus, saying he was the "only one true Christian". He presented a Christ whose own inner life consisted of "blessedness in peace, in gentleness, in the inability for enmity". There is much criticism by Nietzsche of the organized institution of Christianity and its class of priests. Christ's evangelism consisted of the good news that the kingdom of God is within you.[22] "What are the 'glad tidings'? True life, eternal life is found—it is not promised, it is here, it is within you: as life lived in love.... 'Sin', every kind of distancing relationship between God and man, is abolished - precisely this is the 'glad tidings'. The 'glad tidings' are precisely that there are no more opposites...."
Dayanand Saraswati[edit]
Dayananda Saraswati, 19th century philosopher and the founder of Arya Samaj, in his book Satyarth Prakash, he criticized Christianity and described Jesus as a "great thing in a country of uneducated savages":
"All Christian missionaries say that Jesus was a very calm and peace-loving person. But in reality he was a hot-tempered person destitute of knowledge and who behaved like a wild savage. This shows that Jesus was neither the son of God, nor had he any miraculous powers. He did not possess the power to forgive sins. The righteous people do not stand in need of any mediator like Jesus. Jesus came to spread discord which is going on everywhere in the world. Therefore, it is evident that the hoax of Christ’s being the Son of God, the knower of the past and the future, the forgiver of sin, has been set up falsely by his disciples. In reality, he was a very ordinary ignorant man, neither learned nor a yogi."[23]
Saraswati asserted that Jesus wasn't an enlightened man either, and that if Jesus was a son of God, God would have saved him at the time of his death, and he wouldn't had suffered from severe mental and physical pain at last moments.
Noting that the Bible writes that women held the feet of Jesus and worshiped him, he questions:-
"Was it the same body which had been buried? Now that body had been buried for three days, we should like to know why did it not decompose?"
Bertrand Russell[edit]
Bertrand Russell called Jesus’ vindictive nature a defect in his moral character.
In the 1927 essay Why I Am Not a Christian, Russell pointed to parts of the gospel where Jesus is saying that his second coming will occur in the lifetime of some of his listeners (Luke 9:27). He concludes from this that Jesus' prediction was incorrect and thus that Jesus was "not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise".[24]
Regarding Jesus' moral teaching Russell has the following to say:
There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation.[25]
Russell also expresses doubt over the historical existence of Jesus and questions the morality of religion: "I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."[26]
Christopher Hitchens[edit]
Hitchens, late twentieth century author and journalist, was very critical of Jesus and of religion in general. Regarding Jesus' teachings on hell, Hitchens wrote:
The god of Moses would call for other tribes, including his favorite one, to suffer massacre and plague and even extirpation, but when the grave closed over his victims he was essentially finished with them unless he remembered to curse their succeeding progeny. Not until the advent of the Prince of Peace do we hear of the ghastly idea of further punishing and torturing the dead.[27]
Hitchens felt that Jesus was inconsistent, asking:
"If Jesus could heal a blind person he happened to meet, then why not heal blindness?"[28]
Sita Ram Goel[edit]
Sita Ram Goel in the book Jesus Christ: An Artifice for Aggression, criticizes Christianity. He describes Jesus as:
He is no more than an artifice for legitimizing wanton imperialist aggression.[29][clarification needed][why?][context?]
See also[edit]
Portal icon Atheism portal
Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Criticism of Christianity
Historicity of the Gospels
Christ myth theory
Rejection of Jesus
Treatise of the Three Impostors
Problem of Hell
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Chadwick, Henry, ed. (1980). Contra Celsum. Cambridge University Press. p. xxviii. ISBN 978-0-521-29576-5.
2.Jump up ^ Stevenson, J. (1987). Frend, W. H. C., ed. A New Eusebius: Documents illustrating the history of the Church to AD 337. SPCK. p. 257. ISBN 978-0-281-04268-5.
3.Jump up ^ Jews and Christians: the parting of the ways, A.D. 70 to 135 : the second Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism.
4.Jump up ^ Simmons, Shraga, "Why Jews Do not Believe in Jesus", Retrieved April 15, 2007; "Why Jews Do not Believe in Jesus", Ohr Samayach — Ask the Rabbi, Retrieved April 15, 2007; "Why do not Jews believe that Jesus was the Messiah?", AskMoses.com, Retrieved April 15, 2007
5.Jump up ^ "The Hammer of God" Page 34 by Stephen Andrew Missick
6.Jump up ^ Whitacre, Rodney A. (2010). "John 7". John (IVP New Testament Commentary). Downers Grove, Ill.: Ivp Academic. ISBN 978-0830840045.
7.Jump up ^ Hilchot Malachim (laws concerning kings) (Hebrew)", MechonMamre.org, Retrieved April 15, 2007
8.Jump up ^ Cardinal Dulles, Avery. "Development or Reversal?". First Things.
9.Jump up ^ Giles, Kevin. "The Biblical Argument for Slavery: Can the Bible Mislead? A Case Study in Hermeneutics." Evangelical Quarterly 66 (1994): p. 10 http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1994-1_003.pdf
10.Jump up ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. pp 65-66
11.^ Jump up to: a b Raymond Edward Brown, Mary in the New Testament, Paulist Press, 1978. pp 261-262
12.Jump up ^ http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap0301/celsus.htm
13.Jump up ^ Origen, Contra Celsus1.32
14.Jump up ^ James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity, Simon and Schuster, 2006. p 64
15.Jump up ^ Robert E. Van Voorst,Jesus outside the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. pp 67-68
16.Jump up ^ James Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty (2006), pages. 64-72
17.Jump up ^ J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius: Documents illustrating the history of the Church to AD 337 (Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1957; New Edition, revised by W. H. C. Frend, page 257, 1987). ISBN 0-281-04268-3
18.Jump up ^ Dominic Janes, Romans and Christians, page 51 (Tempus, 2002). ISBN 978-0752419541
19.Jump up ^ Friedrich Nietzsche, 1895, Twilight of the Idols, Morality as Anti-nature, 1.
20.Jump up ^ Friedrich Nietzsche, 1878, Human all too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, The Wanderer and His Shado, aphorism 83.
21.Jump up ^ http://centretruths.co.uk/fahdtu/THE%20ANTICHRIST.htm
22.Jump up ^ The Antichrist, § 34
23.Jump up ^ "Hindu Nationalists of Modern India" by Jose Kuruvachira, p. 20
24.Jump up ^ Russel, Bertrand (1927). Why I am not a Christian in "Why I am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects," 2004, Routledge Classics, p.13.
25.Jump up ^ Why I am not a Christian By Russell
26.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand. "Why I Am Not a Christian". Retrieved 2007-04-20.
27.Jump up ^ Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, (2007) pages: 175–176
28.Jump up ^ Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, (2007) page: 3
29.Jump up ^ Sarto Esteves (2002). Freedom to build, not destroy: attacks on Christians and their institutions. Media House. p. 66.
Further reading[edit]
Toledoth Yeshu, translation of Morris Goldstein (Jesus in the Jewish Tradition) and Alan Humm.
[hide]
v ·
t ·
e
Jesus
Historicity
Chronology of Jesus ·
Genealogy of Jesus ·
Historical Jesus (Quest for the historical Jesus ·
Portraits of the historical Jesus ·
Sources ·
Josephus on Jesus ·
Tacitus mention ·
Mara bar Serapion letter)
·
Historicity (Gospels)
Life
Birth (Nativity ·
Mary ·
Joseph)
·
Childhood ·
Unknown years ·
Baptism ·
Temptation ·
Apostles (selection ·
Great Commission)
·
Ministry ·
Sermon on the Mount (Plain)
·
Parables ·
Miracles ·
Transfiguration ·
Homelessness ·
Passion (arrest)
·
Crucifixion ·
Tomb ·
Resurrection ·
Ascension
New Testament
Gospels (Matthew ·
Mark ·
Luke ·
John ·
Gospel harmony ·
Oral gospel traditions)
·
Life of Jesus in the New Testament ·
Historical background of the New Testament ·
New Testament places associated with Jesus ·
Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament
Culture
Language of Jesus ·
Bibliography ·
Race and appearance of Jesus
Christianity
Christ ·
Christianity ·
Christology ·
Depictions of Jesus (art)
·
Jesus in Christianity ·
Relics associated with Jesus ·
Scholastic Lutheran Christology ·
Second Coming of Christ ·
Session of Christ
Other views
Brothers of Jesus ·
Jesuism ·
Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam ·
Jesus in comparative mythology (Christ myth theory)
·
Jesus in Islam ·
Jesus in Scientology ·
Judaism's view of Jesus (in the Talmud)
·
Master Jesus ·
Religious perspectives on Jesus ·
Criticism
Commons page Commons ·
Wikiquote page Wikiquote
Categories: Perspectives on Jesus
Criticism of Christianity
Criticism of individuals
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 May 2015, at 01:11.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Jesus
Criticism of Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion
By religion
Buddhism ·
Christianity (Catholicism ·
Jehovah's Witnesses ·
Seventh-day Adventist)
·
Protestantism ·
Hinduism ·
Islam (Twelver Islam)
·
Jainism ·
Judaism ·
Mormonism ·
Sikhism
By religious figure
Jesus ·
Moses ·
Muhammad ·
Ellen G. White
By text
Bible ·
Book of Mormon ·
Quran ·
Talmud
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
Giordano Bruno ·
Richard Dawkins ·
Denis Diderot ·
Epicurus ·
Ludwig Feuerbach ·
Stephen Fry ·
Sita Ram Goel ·
Emma Goldman ·
Sam Harris ·
Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
Christopher Hitchens ·
Baron d'Holbach ·
David Hume ·
Robert G. Ingersoll ·
Karl Marx ·
Friedrich Nietzsche ·
Michel Onfray ·
Thomas Paine ·
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
Ayn Rand ·
André Servier ·
David Silverman ·
Max Stirner ·
Bertrand Russell ·
Dayananda Saraswati ·
Victor J. Stenger ·
Voltaire
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
War ·
Buddhism ·
Christianity ·
Islam ·
Judaism ·
Mormonism
Related topics
Abuse ·
Apostasy ·
Crisis of faith ·
Criticism of atheism ·
Criticism of monotheism ·
Persecution ·
Sexuality ·
Slavery
v ·
t ·
e
Jesus of Nazareth is the central figure of Christianity. Christians believe that he was (and still is) divine, while Muslims consider him to have been an important prophet. Since the time in which he is said to have lived, a number of noted individuals have criticised Jesus, some of whom were themselves Christians.
Early critics of Jesus and Christianity included Celsus in the second century and Porphyry in the third.[1][2] In the 19th century, Friedrich Nietzsche was highly critical of Jesus, whose teachings he considered to be "anti-nature" in their treatment of topics such as sexuality. More contemporary notable critics of Jesus include Sita Ram Goel, Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, and Dayananda Saraswati.
Contents [hide]
1 Criticism by Jesus' contemporaries 1.1 Pharisees and scribes
1.2 Magic and exorcism
2 Criticism in Judaism
3 Slavery
4 Criticism by source 4.1 Celsus
4.2 Porphyry of Tyre
4.3 Friedrich Nietzsche
4.4 Dayanand Saraswati
4.5 Bertrand Russell
4.6 Christopher Hitchens
4.7 Sita Ram Goel
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
Criticism by Jesus' contemporaries[edit]
Pharisees and scribes[edit]
The Pharisees and scribes criticized Jesus and his disciples for not observing the Mosaic Law. They criticized his disciples for not washing their hands before eating. (The religious leaders engaged in ceremonial cleansing like washing up to the elbow and baptizing the cups and plates before eating food in them—Mark 7:1-23, Matthew 15:1-20.) Jesus is also criticized for eating with the publicans (Mark 2:15). The Pharisees also criticized Jesus' disciples for gathering grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–3:6).
Magic and exorcism[edit]
In the latter half of the first century and into the second century, Jewish and pagan opponents of Christianity argued that the miracles and exorcisms of Jesus and his followers were the result of magic.[3]
Criticism in Judaism[edit]
Main article: Judaism's view of Jesus
See also: Jesus in the Talmud
Judaism, including Orthodox Judaism, Hareidi Judaism, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, and Reconstructionist Judaism, rejects the idea of Jesus being God, or a person of a Trinity, or a mediator to God. Judaism also holds that Jesus is not the Messiah, arguing that he had not fulfilled the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh nor embodied the personal qualifications of the Messiah. According to Jewish tradition, there were no more prophets after Malachi, who lived centuries before Jesus and delivered his prophesies about 420 BC/BCE.[4][5] Thus Judaism is critical of Jesus' own claims and allusions about his Messiahship and his identification as the "son of God",[6] as presented in the New Testament.
The Mishneh Torah, an authoritative work of Jewish law, provides the last established consensus view of the Jewish community, in Hilkhot Melakhim 11:10–12 that Jesus is a "stumbling block" who makes "the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God".
Even Jesus the Nazarene who imagined that he would be Messiah and was killed by the court, was already prophesied by Daniel. So that it was said, "And the members of the outlaws of your nation would be carried to make a (prophetic) vision stand. And they stumbled."[Dan. 11:14] Because, is there a greater stumbling-block than this one? So that all of the prophets spoke that the Messiah redeems Israel, and saves them, and gathers their banished ones, and strengthens their commandments. And this one caused (nations) to destroy Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them, and to exchange the Torah, and to make the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God. However, the thoughts of the Creator of the world — there is no force in a human to attain them because our ways are not God's ways, and our thoughts not God's thoughts. And all these things of Jesus the Nazarene, and of (Muhammad) the Ishmaelite who stood after him — there is no (purpose) but to straighten out the way for the King Messiah, and to restore all the world to serve God together. So that it is said, "Because then I will turn toward the nations (giving them) a clear lip, to call all of them in the name of God and to serve God (shoulder to shoulder as) one shoulder."[Zeph. 3:9] Look how all the world already becomes full of the things of the Messiah, and the things of the Torah, and the things of the commandments! And these things spread among the far islands and among the many nations uncircumcised of heart.[7]
Slavery[edit]
Avery Robert Dulles held the opinion that "Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social institution", and believes that the writers of the New Testament did not oppose slavery either.[8] In his paper published in Evangelical Quarterly, Kevin Giles notes that Jesus often encountered slavery, "but not one word of criticism did the Lord utter against slavery." Giles points to this fact as being used as an argument that Jesus approved of slavery.[9]
Criticism by source[edit]
Celsus[edit]
Main article: Celsus
Celsus, 2nd-century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity, mounts a wide criticism against Jesus as the founder of the Christian faith.[1] He discounts or disparages Jesus' ancestry, conception, birth, childhood, ministry, death, resurrection, and continuing influence. According to Celsus, Jesus' ancestors came from a Jewish village. His mother was a poor country girl who earned her living by spinning cloth. He worked his miracles by sorcery and was a small, homely man. This Rabbi Jesus kept all Jewish customs, including sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem. He gathered only a few followers and taught them his worst habits, including begging for money. These disciples, amounting to "ten boatmen and a couple of tax collectors" were not respectable. The reports of his resurrection came from a hysterical female, and belief in the resurrection was the result of Jesus' sorcery and the crazed thinking of his followers, all for the purpose of impressing others and increasing the chance for others to become beggars.[10][11]
According to Celsus, Jesus was the inspiration for skulking rebels who deserve persecution.[12]
Celsus stated that Jesus was the bastard child of the Roman soldier Panthera or Pantera.[13] These charges of illegitimacy are the earliest datable statement of the Jewish charge that Jesus was conceived as the result of adultery (see Jesus in the Talmud) and that his true father was a Roman soldier named Panthera. Panthera was a common name among Roman soldiers of that period. The name has some similarity to the Greek adjective parthenos, meaning "virgin".[14][15] The tomb of a Roman soldier named Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera, found in Bad Kreuznach, Germany, is taken by some scholars[16] to refer to the Pantera named by Celsus.
According to Celsus, Jesus had no standing in the Hebrew Bible prophecies and talk of his resurrection was foolishness.[11]
Porphyry of Tyre[edit]
Main article: Porphyry (philosopher)
The Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry of Tyre (c. 232–c. 304) authored the 15 volume treatise Against the Christians, proscribed by the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius II, of which only fragments now survive and were collected by Adolf von Harnack. Selected fragments were published in English translation by J. Stevenson in 1957, of which the following is one example:
Even supposing some Greeks are so foolish as to think that the gods dwell in the statues, even that would be a much purer concept (of religion) than to admit that the Divine Power should descend into the womb of the Virgin Mary, that it became an embryo, and after birth was wrapped in rags, soiled with blood and bile, and even worse.[17][18]
Friedrich Nietzsche[edit]
Nietzsche considered Jesus’ teachings to be "unnatural".
Nietzsche, nineteenth century philosopher, has many criticisms of Jesus and Christianity, even going so far as to style himself as The Anti-Christ. In Human, All Too Human, and Twilight of the Idols for example, Nietzsche accuses the Church's and Jesus' teachings as being anti-natural in their treatment of passions, in particularly sexuality: "There [In the Sermon on the Mount] it is said, for example, with particular reference to sexuality: 'If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out.' Fortunately, no Christian acts in accordance with this precept[19]... the Christian who follows that advice and believes he has killed his sensuality is deceiving himself: it lives on in an uncanny vampire form and torments in repulsive disguises."[20] Nietzsche does explicitly consider Jesus as a mortal, and furthermore as ultimately misguided, the antithesis of a true hero, whom he posits with his concept of a Dionysian hero. Nietzsche was repulsed by Jesus' elevation of the lowly: "Everything pitiful, everything suffering from itself, everything tormented by base feelings, the whole ghetto-world of the soul suddenly on top!"[21]
However Nietzsche did not demur of Jesus, saying he was the "only one true Christian". He presented a Christ whose own inner life consisted of "blessedness in peace, in gentleness, in the inability for enmity". There is much criticism by Nietzsche of the organized institution of Christianity and its class of priests. Christ's evangelism consisted of the good news that the kingdom of God is within you.[22] "What are the 'glad tidings'? True life, eternal life is found—it is not promised, it is here, it is within you: as life lived in love.... 'Sin', every kind of distancing relationship between God and man, is abolished - precisely this is the 'glad tidings'. The 'glad tidings' are precisely that there are no more opposites...."
Dayanand Saraswati[edit]
Dayananda Saraswati, 19th century philosopher and the founder of Arya Samaj, in his book Satyarth Prakash, he criticized Christianity and described Jesus as a "great thing in a country of uneducated savages":
"All Christian missionaries say that Jesus was a very calm and peace-loving person. But in reality he was a hot-tempered person destitute of knowledge and who behaved like a wild savage. This shows that Jesus was neither the son of God, nor had he any miraculous powers. He did not possess the power to forgive sins. The righteous people do not stand in need of any mediator like Jesus. Jesus came to spread discord which is going on everywhere in the world. Therefore, it is evident that the hoax of Christ’s being the Son of God, the knower of the past and the future, the forgiver of sin, has been set up falsely by his disciples. In reality, he was a very ordinary ignorant man, neither learned nor a yogi."[23]
Saraswati asserted that Jesus wasn't an enlightened man either, and that if Jesus was a son of God, God would have saved him at the time of his death, and he wouldn't had suffered from severe mental and physical pain at last moments.
Noting that the Bible writes that women held the feet of Jesus and worshiped him, he questions:-
"Was it the same body which had been buried? Now that body had been buried for three days, we should like to know why did it not decompose?"
Bertrand Russell[edit]
Bertrand Russell called Jesus’ vindictive nature a defect in his moral character.
In the 1927 essay Why I Am Not a Christian, Russell pointed to parts of the gospel where Jesus is saying that his second coming will occur in the lifetime of some of his listeners (Luke 9:27). He concludes from this that Jesus' prediction was incorrect and thus that Jesus was "not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise".[24]
Regarding Jesus' moral teaching Russell has the following to say:
There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation.[25]
Russell also expresses doubt over the historical existence of Jesus and questions the morality of religion: "I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."[26]
Christopher Hitchens[edit]
Hitchens, late twentieth century author and journalist, was very critical of Jesus and of religion in general. Regarding Jesus' teachings on hell, Hitchens wrote:
The god of Moses would call for other tribes, including his favorite one, to suffer massacre and plague and even extirpation, but when the grave closed over his victims he was essentially finished with them unless he remembered to curse their succeeding progeny. Not until the advent of the Prince of Peace do we hear of the ghastly idea of further punishing and torturing the dead.[27]
Hitchens felt that Jesus was inconsistent, asking:
"If Jesus could heal a blind person he happened to meet, then why not heal blindness?"[28]
Sita Ram Goel[edit]
Sita Ram Goel in the book Jesus Christ: An Artifice for Aggression, criticizes Christianity. He describes Jesus as:
He is no more than an artifice for legitimizing wanton imperialist aggression.[29][clarification needed][why?][context?]
See also[edit]
Portal icon Atheism portal
Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Criticism of Christianity
Historicity of the Gospels
Christ myth theory
Rejection of Jesus
Treatise of the Three Impostors
Problem of Hell
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Chadwick, Henry, ed. (1980). Contra Celsum. Cambridge University Press. p. xxviii. ISBN 978-0-521-29576-5.
2.Jump up ^ Stevenson, J. (1987). Frend, W. H. C., ed. A New Eusebius: Documents illustrating the history of the Church to AD 337. SPCK. p. 257. ISBN 978-0-281-04268-5.
3.Jump up ^ Jews and Christians: the parting of the ways, A.D. 70 to 135 : the second Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism.
4.Jump up ^ Simmons, Shraga, "Why Jews Do not Believe in Jesus", Retrieved April 15, 2007; "Why Jews Do not Believe in Jesus", Ohr Samayach — Ask the Rabbi, Retrieved April 15, 2007; "Why do not Jews believe that Jesus was the Messiah?", AskMoses.com, Retrieved April 15, 2007
5.Jump up ^ "The Hammer of God" Page 34 by Stephen Andrew Missick
6.Jump up ^ Whitacre, Rodney A. (2010). "John 7". John (IVP New Testament Commentary). Downers Grove, Ill.: Ivp Academic. ISBN 978-0830840045.
7.Jump up ^ Hilchot Malachim (laws concerning kings) (Hebrew)", MechonMamre.org, Retrieved April 15, 2007
8.Jump up ^ Cardinal Dulles, Avery. "Development or Reversal?". First Things.
9.Jump up ^ Giles, Kevin. "The Biblical Argument for Slavery: Can the Bible Mislead? A Case Study in Hermeneutics." Evangelical Quarterly 66 (1994): p. 10 http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1994-1_003.pdf
10.Jump up ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. pp 65-66
11.^ Jump up to: a b Raymond Edward Brown, Mary in the New Testament, Paulist Press, 1978. pp 261-262
12.Jump up ^ http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap0301/celsus.htm
13.Jump up ^ Origen, Contra Celsus1.32
14.Jump up ^ James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity, Simon and Schuster, 2006. p 64
15.Jump up ^ Robert E. Van Voorst,Jesus outside the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. pp 67-68
16.Jump up ^ James Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty (2006), pages. 64-72
17.Jump up ^ J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius: Documents illustrating the history of the Church to AD 337 (Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1957; New Edition, revised by W. H. C. Frend, page 257, 1987). ISBN 0-281-04268-3
18.Jump up ^ Dominic Janes, Romans and Christians, page 51 (Tempus, 2002). ISBN 978-0752419541
19.Jump up ^ Friedrich Nietzsche, 1895, Twilight of the Idols, Morality as Anti-nature, 1.
20.Jump up ^ Friedrich Nietzsche, 1878, Human all too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, The Wanderer and His Shado, aphorism 83.
21.Jump up ^ http://centretruths.co.uk/fahdtu/THE%20ANTICHRIST.htm
22.Jump up ^ The Antichrist, § 34
23.Jump up ^ "Hindu Nationalists of Modern India" by Jose Kuruvachira, p. 20
24.Jump up ^ Russel, Bertrand (1927). Why I am not a Christian in "Why I am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects," 2004, Routledge Classics, p.13.
25.Jump up ^ Why I am not a Christian By Russell
26.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand. "Why I Am Not a Christian". Retrieved 2007-04-20.
27.Jump up ^ Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, (2007) pages: 175–176
28.Jump up ^ Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, (2007) page: 3
29.Jump up ^ Sarto Esteves (2002). Freedom to build, not destroy: attacks on Christians and their institutions. Media House. p. 66.
Further reading[edit]
Toledoth Yeshu, translation of Morris Goldstein (Jesus in the Jewish Tradition) and Alan Humm.
[hide]
v ·
t ·
e
Jesus
Historicity
Chronology of Jesus ·
Genealogy of Jesus ·
Historical Jesus (Quest for the historical Jesus ·
Portraits of the historical Jesus ·
Sources ·
Josephus on Jesus ·
Tacitus mention ·
Mara bar Serapion letter)
·
Historicity (Gospels)
Life
Birth (Nativity ·
Mary ·
Joseph)
·
Childhood ·
Unknown years ·
Baptism ·
Temptation ·
Apostles (selection ·
Great Commission)
·
Ministry ·
Sermon on the Mount (Plain)
·
Parables ·
Miracles ·
Transfiguration ·
Homelessness ·
Passion (arrest)
·
Crucifixion ·
Tomb ·
Resurrection ·
Ascension
New Testament
Gospels (Matthew ·
Mark ·
Luke ·
John ·
Gospel harmony ·
Oral gospel traditions)
·
Life of Jesus in the New Testament ·
Historical background of the New Testament ·
New Testament places associated with Jesus ·
Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament
Culture
Language of Jesus ·
Bibliography ·
Race and appearance of Jesus
Christianity
Christ ·
Christianity ·
Christology ·
Depictions of Jesus (art)
·
Jesus in Christianity ·
Relics associated with Jesus ·
Scholastic Lutheran Christology ·
Second Coming of Christ ·
Session of Christ
Other views
Brothers of Jesus ·
Jesuism ·
Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam ·
Jesus in comparative mythology (Christ myth theory)
·
Jesus in Islam ·
Jesus in Scientology ·
Judaism's view of Jesus (in the Talmud)
·
Master Jesus ·
Religious perspectives on Jesus ·
Criticism
Commons page Commons ·
Wikiquote page Wikiquote
Categories: Perspectives on Jesus
Criticism of Christianity
Criticism of individuals
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 May 2015, at 01:11.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Jesus
Criticism of Christianity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about criticism of the doctrines and practices of Christianity. For negative attitudes towards Christians, see Anti-Christian sentiment.
Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd
Jesus ·
Christ
[show]
Bible ·
Foundations
[show]
Theology[show]
History ·
Tradition
[show]
Related topics[show]
Denominations ·
Groups
[show]
Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
t ·
e
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion
By religion
Buddhism ·
Christianity (Catholicism ·
Jehovah's Witnesses ·
Seventh-day Adventist)
·
Protestantism ·
Hinduism ·
Islam (Twelver Islam)
·
Jainism ·
Judaism ·
Mormonism ·
Sikhism
By religious figure
Jesus ·
Moses ·
Muhammad ·
Ellen G. White
By text
Bible ·
Book of Mormon ·
Quran ·
Talmud
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
Giordano Bruno ·
Richard Dawkins ·
Denis Diderot ·
Epicurus ·
Ludwig Feuerbach ·
Stephen Fry ·
Sita Ram Goel ·
Emma Goldman ·
Sam Harris ·
Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
Christopher Hitchens ·
Baron d'Holbach ·
David Hume ·
Robert G. Ingersoll ·
Karl Marx ·
Friedrich Nietzsche ·
Michel Onfray ·
Thomas Paine ·
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
Ayn Rand ·
André Servier ·
David Silverman ·
Max Stirner ·
Bertrand Russell ·
Dayananda Saraswati ·
Victor J. Stenger ·
Voltaire
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
War ·
Buddhism ·
Christianity ·
Islam ·
Judaism ·
Mormonism
Related topics
Abuse ·
Apostasy ·
Crisis of faith ·
Criticism of atheism ·
Criticism of monotheism ·
Persecution ·
Sexuality ·
Slavery
v ·
t ·
e
Criticism of Christianity varies from the criticism of Christian beliefs, teachings, history, activities, and terrorism. Throughout the history of Christianity, many have criticized Christianity, the church, Jesus, Christian Bible, Christians and other elements of Christianity.
The formal response of Christians to such criticisms is described as Christian apologetics. Several areas of criticism also include the claims of scripture itself, the ethics of biblical interpretations that have been used historically to justify certain attitudes and behaviors, the question of the religion's compatibility with science, and other Christian doctrines. The criticism came from the various religious and non-religious groups around the world, some of whom were themselves Christians.
Contents [hide]
1 Scripture 1.1 Biblical criticism
1.2 Judaic view: Unfulfilled prophecy
1.3 Selective interpretation
1.4 Textual corruption
1.5 Mistranslation 1.5.1 Translation of Almah as Virgin
1.5.2 Prophecy of the Nazarene
2 Miracles
3 Ethics 3.1 Colonialism
3.2 Slavery
3.3 Christianity and women
3.4 Christianity and politics
3.5 Christianity and violence
4 Science
5 Doctrine 5.1 Incarnation
5.2 Hell and damnation
5.3 Idolatry
5.4 Limbo
5.5 Atonement
5.6 Second Coming
5.7 Inconsistency with Old Testament conception of the afterlife
6 Criticism of Christians 6.1 Negative attitudes in the United States
6.2 Negative attitudes in Nazi Germany
6.3 Hypocrisy
6.4 Bigotry
6.5 Materialism
6.6 Sectarianism
6.7 Persecution by Christians
6.8 Response of apologists
7 Criticism by other religions 7.1 Hinduism
7.2 Judaism
7.3 Islam
8 Origins
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading 11.1 Skeptical of Christianity
11.2 Defending Christianity
12 External links 12.1 General
12.2 Skeptical
12.3 From other religions
12.4 Apologetic
12.5 Debates
Scripture[edit]
See also: Criticism of the Bible
Biblical criticism[edit]
See also: Biblical criticism, The Bible and History and Internal consistency and the Bible
Biblical criticism, in particular higher criticism, covers a variety of methods used since the Enlightenment in the early 18th century as scholars began to apply to biblical documents the same methods and perspectives which had already been applied to other literary and philosophical texts.[1] It is an umbrella term covering various techniques used mainly by mainline and liberal Christian theologians to study the meaning of biblical passages. It uses general historical principles, and is based primarily on reason rather than revelation or faith. There are four primary types of biblical criticism:[2]
Form criticism: an analysis of literary documents, particularly the Bible, to discover earlier oral traditions (stories, legends, myths, etc.) upon which they were based.
Tradition criticism: an analysis of the Bible, concentrating on how religious traditions grew and changed over the time span during which the text was written.
Higher criticism: the study of the sources and literary methods employed by the biblical authors.[3][2]
Lower criticism: the discipline and study of the actual wording of the Bible; a quest for textual purity and understanding.[3]
Inconsistencies have been pointed out by critics and skeptics,[4] 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 assertions 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,[5][6] but the Gospels by four independent witnesses,[7] and all of the Pauline Epistles, except possibly the Hebrews, as having been written by Paul the Apostle.
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."[8]
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).[9] He indicates there are expressly false statements in the Bible which are reported accurately[9] (for example, Satan is a liar whose lies are accurately reported as to what he actually said).[9] 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.[10]:Art. VIII
Those who believe in the inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible (or inerrant), that is, free from error in the truths it expresses by its character as the word of God.[11] However, the scope of what this encompasses is disputed, as the term includes 'faith and practice' positions, with some denominations holding that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors.[12] Other scholars take stronger views,[13] but for a few verses these positions require more exegetical work, leading to dispute (compare the serious debate over the related issue of perspicuity, attracting biblical and philosophical discussion).
Infallibility refers to the original texts of the Bible, and all mainstream scholars acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation; yet, through use textual criticism modern (critical) copies are considered to "faithfully represent the original",[10]:Art. X and our understanding of the original language sufficiently well for accurate translation. The opposing view is that there is too much corruption, or translation too difficult, to agree with modern texts.
Judaic view: Unfulfilled prophecy[edit]
God reveals himself to Abraham in scripture and he is seen here with three angels. By Giovanni Battista Tiepolo.
Hundreds of years before the time of Jesus, Jewish prophets promised that a messiah would come. Judaism claims that Jesus did not fulfill these prophecies. Other skeptics usually claim that the prophecies are either vague or unfulfilled,[14] or that the Old Testament writings influenced the composition of New Testament narratives.[15] Christian apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, which they argue are nearly impossible to fulfill by chance.[16] Many Christians anticipate the Second Coming of Jesus, when he will fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy, such as the Last Judgment, the general resurrection, establishment of the Kingdom of God, and the Messianic Age (see the article on Preterism for contrasting Christian views).
The New Testament traces Jesus' line to that of David; however, according to Stephen L. Harris:[17]
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, 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, making Jesus' crucifixion a "stumbling block" to scripturally literate Jews. (1 Cor.1:23)
Christian preachers counter this argument by stating that these prophecies will be fulfilled by Jesus in the Millennial Reign after the Great Tribulation, according to New Testament prophecies, especially in the Book of Revelation.
The 16th-century Jewish theologian Isaac ben Abraham, who lived in Trakai, Lithuania, penned a work called Chizzuk Emunah (Faith Strengthened) that attempted to refute the ideas that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament and that Christianity was the "New Covenant" of God. He systematically identified a number of inconsistencies in the New Testament, contradictions between the New Testament and the Old Testament, and Old Testament prophesies which remained unfulfilled in Jesus' lifetime. In addition, he questioned a number of Christian practices, such as Sunday Sabbath.[18] Written originally for Jews to persuade them not to convert to Christianity,[19] the work was eventually read by Christians. While the well-known Christian Hebraist Johann Christoph Wagenseil attempted an elaborate refutation of Abraham's arguments, Wagenseil's Latin translation of it only increased interest in the work and inspired later Christian freethinkers. Chizzuk Emunah was praised as a masterpiece by Voltaire.[18]
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.[20] 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, see also Rejection of Jesus) laments that the Messiah had not appeared despite the scepter being taken away from Judah.[21]
Selective interpretation[edit]
See also: Expounding of the Law, Biblical law in Christianity and Cafeteria 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 entire Mosaic Law is described in Galatians 3:24-25 as a tutor which is no longer necessary, according to some interpretations, see also Antinomianism in the New Testament.
On the other hand, many of the Old Testament laws are seen as specifically abrogated by the New Testament, such as circumcision,[22] though this may simply be a parallel to Jewish Noahide Laws. See also Split of early Christianity and Judaism. On the other hand, other passages are pro-Law, such as Romans 3:31: "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law." See also Pauline passages opposing antinomianism.
There are a number of positions which are taken in response to these critics:
Some argue that the specific principles invoked by Christians are endorsed or renewed in the New Testament.[23]
Others argue that the Old Testament law applies, except as modified by the New Testament.[24]
Textual corruption[edit]
See also: Biblical criticism and Textual criticism
Within the abundance of biblical manuscripts exist a number of textual variants. The vast majority of these textual variants are the inconsequential misspelling of words, word order variations[25] and the mistranscription of abbreviations.[26] Text critics such as Bart D. Ehrman have proposed that some of these textual variants and interpolations were theologically motivated.[27] Ehrman's conclusions and textual variant choices have been challenged by reviewers, including Daniel B. Wallace, Craig Blomberg and Thomas Howe.[28]
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. These possible later additions include the following:[29][30]
The ending of Mark[Mk. 16]
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
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 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.[31] 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."[31]
With the discovery of the Hebrew Bible texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, questions have been raised about the textual accuracy of the Masoretic text. That is, whether the Masoretic text which forms the basis of most modern English translations of the Old Testament, or translations which pre-date the masoretic text, such as the Septuagint, Syriac Peshitta, and Samaritan Pentateuch are more accurate.[citation needed]
Mistranslation[edit]
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[10] 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 inconsistencies arising between different English translations of the Hebrew or Greek text. Some Christian interpretations are criticized for reflecting specific doctrinal bias[32] or a variant reading between the Masoretic Hebrew and Septuagint Greek manuscripts often quoted in the New Testament.
Translation of Almah as Virgin[edit]
Matthew 1:22-1:23 reads: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." As early as the 2nd century CE, Jewish critics have argued that Christians were mistaken in their reading of the word almah ("עלמה") in Isaiah 7:14.[33] 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).[32]
Christians claim that the reference to the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 refers to a virgin birth, but critics claim otherwise.
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15)
The Greek text of Matthew 1:23 uses the term "parthenos", which is the usual Greek word for virgin:
"ιδού η παρθένος εν γαστρί έξει και τέξεται υιόν και καλέσουσιν το όνομα αυτού Εμμανουήλ ο έστιν μεθερμηνευόμενος μεθ' ημών ο Θεός". (Matthew 1:23 Textus Receptus)[34]
The (right-to-left) Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 uses the word almah:
יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל. 14Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)[35]
The Jewish translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek that was in use during the 1st century, the Septuagint, uses the word "parthenos" ("virgin") in Isaiah 7:14 rather than the usual Greek word "neanis" for "young woman".[36] 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, but only in light of the Masoretic Canon which was finalized nearly 1000 years after the Septuagint.[37]
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.[38] 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.[39]
(For more information, see the articles on the Virgin birth of Jesus and Isaiah 7:14.)
Prophecy of the Nazarene[edit]
Another example is Nazarene in Matthew 2:23: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." The website for Jews for Judaism claims that "Since a Nazarene is a resident of the city of Nazareth and this city did not exist during the time period of the Jewish Bible, it is impossible to find this quotation in the Hebrew Scriptures. It was fabricated."[32][40] However, one common suggestion is that the New Testament verse is based on a passage relating to Nazirites, either because this was a misunderstanding common at the time, or through deliberate re-reading of the term by the early Christians. Another suggestion is "that Matthew was playing on the similarity of the Hebrew word nezer (translated 'Branch' or 'shoot' in Isaiah 11:1 and Jeremiah 23:5) with the Greek nazoraios, here translated 'Nazarene.'"[41] Christians also suggest that by using an indirect quotation and the plural term prophets, "Matthew was only saying that by living in Nazareth, Jesus was fulfilling the many Old Testament prophecies that He would be despised and rejected."[42] The background for this is illustrated by Philip's initial response in John 1:46 to the idea that Jesus might be the Messiah: "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?"[41]
Miracles[edit]
Further information: Miracle, Faith healing and Exorcism
Philosopher David Hume argued against the plausibility of miracles:[43]
1) A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature;
2) We know these laws through repeated and constant experience;
3) The testimony of those who report miracles contradicts the operation of known scientific laws;
4) Consequently no one can rationally believe in miracles.
Hume's argument against the plausibility of miracles produced by humans is answered by Jesus' own admission of the human impossibility of miracles, which are acts of God that are "impossible for men", but "with God all things are possible". (Matthew 19:26)
The Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church reject Hume's argument against miracles outright with the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas, who postulated that Reason alone was not sufficient to understand God's energies (activities such as miracles) and essence, but faith was.[44]
Miraculous healings through prayers, often involving the "laying on of hands", have been reported. However, reliance on faith healing alone can indirectly contribute to serious harm and even death.[45] Christian apologists including C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig have argued that miracles are reasonable and plausible.[46][47][48]
Ethics[edit]
Main article: Ethics in the Bible
Certain interpretations of some moral decisions in the Bible are considered ethically questionable by many modern groups. Some of the passages most commonly criticized include colonialism, the subjugation of women, religious intolerance, condemnation of homosexuality, and support for the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments.
The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the ethics of Christianity. See Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche#Christianity and morality.
Colonialism[edit]
Main article: Christianity and colonialism
Christianity and colonialism are often closely associated because Catholicism, Russian Orthodoxy and Protestantism were the religions of the European colonial powers[49] and acted in many ways as the "religious arm" of those powers.[50] Initially, Christian missionaries were portrayed as "visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery". However, by the time the colonial era drew to a close in the last half of the twentieth century, missionaries became viewed as “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them.”[51]
Christianity is targeted by critics of colonialism because the tenets of the religion were used to justify the actions of the colonists.[52] For example, Michael Wood asserts that the indigenous peoples were not considered to be human beings and that the colonisers was shaped by "centuries of Ethnocentrism, and Christian monotheism, which espoused one truth, one time and version of reality."[53]
Slavery[edit]
Main article: Christianity and slavery
Early Christianity variously opposed, accepted, or ignored slavery.[54] 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 that the institution of slavery existed.
The earliest surviving Christian teachings about slavery are from Paul the Apostle, who frequently referred to himself as a "Slave of Christ", perhaps implying that he was a slave and Jesus was his master, although it may have just been an expression. Paul did not renounce the institution of slavery. Conversely, he taught that Christian slaves ought to serve their masters wholeheartedly.[Eph. 6:5-8] At the same time, he taught slave owners to treat their slaves fairly. The entire Epistle to 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".[Philemon 16] Tradition describes Pope Pius I (term c. 158-167) and Pope Callixtus I (term c. 217-222) as former slaves.[55]
Since the Middle Ages, the Christian understanding of slavery has been subjected to significant internal conflict and has endured dramatic change. Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century recognised slavery, within specific biblical limitations, as consistent with Christian theology. The key verse used to justify slavery was Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem." which was interpreted to mean that Africans were the descendants of Ham, cursed with "the mark of Ham" to be servants to the descendants of Japheth (Europeans) and Shem (Asians).[54] In early Medieval times, the Church discouraged slavery throughout Europe, largely eliminating it.[56] That changed in 1452, when Pope Nicholas V instituted the hereditary slavery of captured Muslims and pagans, regarding all non-Christians as "enemies of Christ."[57]
Rodney Stark makes the argument in For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,[58] that Christianity helped to end slavery worldwide, as does Lamin Sanneh in Abolitionists Abroad.[59] 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.[60] 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. Earlier, 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.[61]
Many 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.[54] Full adherents to reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[62][63][64] With these exceptions, all Christian faith groups now condemn slavery, and see the practice as incompatible with basic Christian principles.[54][56]
In addition to aiding[dubious – discuss] abolitionism, many Christians made further efforts toward establishing racial equality, contributing to the Civil Rights Movement.[65] The African American Review notes the important role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement.[66] 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.[67]
Christianity and women[edit]
See also: Women in Christianity and Women in the Bible
Joan of Arc led battles in the fight to free France from England. She believed that God had commanded her to do so. Upon capture, she was tried for heresy by an English court and burned at the stake. She is now a saint venerated in the Roman Catholic Church.[68]
Many feminists have accused notions such as a male God, male prophets, and the man-centered stories in the Bible of contributing to a patriarchy.[69] 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.[70] For example, women were told to keep silent in the churches for "it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church".[1 Cor. 14:34-35] Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton said in The Woman's Bible that "the Bible in its teachings degrades women from Genesis to Revelation".[71]
Elizabeth Clark cites early Christian writings by authors such as Tertullian, Augustine, and John Chrysostom as being exemplary of the negative perception of women that has been perpetuated in church tradition.[72] Until the latter part of the 20th 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;[73] Mary Magdalene, disciple of Jesus and the first witness to the resurrection; and Mary and Martha, the sisters who offered him hospitality in Bethany.[74]
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 as the adulteress and repentant prostitute presented in John 8—a connection supposed by tradition but nowhere claimed in the New Testament. 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.[74]
Classicist Evelyn Stagg and New Testament scholar Frank Stagg in their jointly authored book, Woman in the World of Jesus, document very unfavorable attitudes toward women that prevailed in the world into which Jesus came. They assert that there is no recorded instance where Jesus disgraces, belittles, reproaches, or stereotypes a woman. They interpret the recorded treatment and attitude Jesus showed to women as evidence that the Founder of Christianity treated women with great dignity and respect.[75] 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.[76] However, Schalom Ben-Chorin argues that Jesus' 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.[Ex. 20:12] [77] He mistakenly assumes Jesus' response to be an offensive statement, when in all actuality, the term "woman" was used to show respect in the Hebrew cultures. Also, Christ was an adult at the time, thirty years of age. He had the biblical right to refuse a command by his mother, and he did so stating that he was doing his Father's (God's) business.
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.[78]
Christian egalitarians advocate ability-based, rather than gender-based, ministry of Christians of all ages, ethnicities and socio-economic classes.[79] 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".[80]
Complementarians support both equality and beneficial differences between men and women.[81] 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.
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.[82] Thus, the idea of God being "The Father" is with regards to his relationship with what are "his children", Christians.
Most mainline Christians claim that the doctrine of the Trinity implies that God should be called Father and not called Mother, in the same way that Jesus was a man and was not a woman.[83] Jesus tells His followers to address God as Father.[Mt. 6:9-13] He tells his disciples to be merciful as their heavenly Father is merciful.[Lk. 6:36] He says the Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask[Lk. 11:13] and that the Spirit of their Father will speak through them in times of persecution.[Mt. 10:20] On Easter Sunday, he directs Mary Magdalene to tell the other disciples, "I am going to my Father and your Father...."[Jn. 20:17] Mark Brumley points out that behind New Testament language of Divine Adoption and regeneration is the idea that God is our Father because He is the "source" or "origin" of our new life in Christ. He has saved us through Christ and sanctified us in the Spirit. Brumley claims this is clearly more than a metaphor; the analogy with earthly fatherhood is obvious. God is not merely like a father for Christ’s followers; he is really their Father. Among Christians who hold to this idea, there is a distinct sense that Jesus' treatment of women should imply equality in leadership and marital roles every bit as strongly as the definite male gender of Jesus should imply a name of Father for God. Rather than as antifeminist, they characterize alternative naming as unnecessary and unsupported by the words found in the Bible.[83]
In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to revise its "Baptist Faith and Message" (Statement of Faith),[84] 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. In the same document, the Southern Baptist Convention took a strong position of the subordinating view of woman in marriage: "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband. She has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation."[84] (Emphasis added)
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not allow female clergy. The Chaldean Catholic Church on the other hand continues to maintain a large number of deaconesses serving alongside male deacons during mass.[85]
In some evangelical churches, it is forbidden for women to become pastors, deacons or church elders. In support of such prohibitions, the verse 1 Timothy 2:12 is often cited:[86]
“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
Christianity and politics[edit]
Main article: Christianity and politics
See also: Christian left, Christian right and Religion and politics
Some leftists and libertarians, including Christians who disavow the Religious Right, use the term Christian fascism or Christofascism to describe what some see as an emerging neoconservative proto-fascism or Evangelical nationalism and possible theocratic sentiment in the United States.[87]
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 Bush articulates. It is a form of Christianity that is the mirror opposite of what Jesus embodied."[88]
Christianity and violence[edit]
Main article: Christianity and violence
See also: Christian terrorism and Crusades
Many critics of Christianity have cited the violent acts of Christian nations as a reason to denounce the religion. Science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke said that he could not forgive religions for the atrocities and wars over time.[89] 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.[90]
Peace, compassion and forgiveness of wrongs done by others are key elements of Christian teaching.[91] However, Christians have struggled since the days of the Church fathers with the question of when the use of force is justified.[92] Such debates have led to concepts such as just war theory. Throughout history, biblical passages have been used to justify the use of force against heretics,[93] sinners[94] and external enemies.[95] Heitman and Hagan identify the Inquisitions, Crusades, wars of religion and antisemitism as being "among the most notorious examples of Christian violence".[96] To this list, J. Denny Weaver adds, "warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child', justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men". Weaver employs a broader definition of violence that extends the meaning of the word to cover "harm or damage", not just physical violence per se. Thus, under his definition, Christian violence includes "forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism".[97]
Although some Christians have relied on Christian teaching to justify their use of force, other[which?] Christians have opposed the use of force and violence. Some[which?] of the latter have formed sects that have emphasized pacificism as a central tenet of their faith.[citation needed] Christians have also engaged in violence against those that they classify as heretics and non-believers. In Letter to a Christian Nation, critic of religion Sam Harris writes that "...faith inspires violence in at least two ways. First, people often kill other human beings because they believe that the creator of the universe wants them to do it... Second, far greater numbers of people fall into conflict with one another because they define their moral community on the basis of their religious affiliation..."[98]
Christian theologians point to a strong doctrinal and historical imperative within Christianity against violence, particularly Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, which taught nonviolence and love of enemies. Weaver says that Jesus' pacifism was "preserved in the justifiable war doctrine that declares all war as sin even when declaring it occasionally a necessary evil, and in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition of Christian pacifism".[97] Others point out sayings and acts of Jesus that do not fit this description: the absence of any censure of the soldier who asks Jesus to heal his servant, his overturning the tables and chasing the moneychangers from the temple with a rope in his hand, and through his Apostles, baptising a Roman Centurion who is never asked to first give up arms.[99]
Science[edit]
Unbalanced scales.svg
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2013)
See also: Science and the Bible and Relationship between religion and science
During the 19th century an interpretive model of the relationship between religion and science known today as the conflict theory developed, according to which interaction between religion and science almost inevitably leads to hostility and conflict. 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. This thesis was a popular historiographical approach during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but most contemporary historians of science now reject it.[100][101][102]
The notion of a war between science and religion remained common in the historiography of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[103] Most of today's historians of science consider that the conflict thesis has been superseded by subsequent historical research.[104] The framing of the relationship between Christianity and science as being predominantly one of conflict is still prevalent in popular culture.[105]
The astronomer Carl Sagan, mentioned 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 Cosmos: 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."[106] Ted Peters in Encyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in this story, it has been exaggerated and has 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".[107] In 1992, the Catholic Church's seeming vindication of Galileo attracted much comment in the media.
Numerous scientists have criticized Christian fundamentalism and creationism as inherently unscientific and incompatible with modern understanding of evolutionary biology, geology, and cosmology.[108][109]
Medieval scholars sought to understand the geometric and harmonic principles by which God created the universe.[110]
Doctrine[edit]
Incarnation[edit]
Main article: Incarnation (Christianity)
The earliest objections to incarnation come from Celsus and Porphyry.[citation needed] 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?"[111]
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. The logical soundness of this trilemma has been widely questioned.[112]
Hell and damnation[edit]
See also: Problem of Hell and Hell in Christianity
Adam and Eve being driven from Eden due to original sin, portrayed by Gustave Doré.
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.[113] Traditional Christian doctrine dictates that, without faith in Jesus Christ or in the Christian faith in general, one is subject to eternal punishment in Hell.[114]
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[115] when the claimed omnipotent God makes, or allows a person to come into existence, with a nature that desires that which God finds objectionable.[116]
In the Abrahamic religions, Hell has traditionally been regarded as a punishment for wrongdoing 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.[117] The Roman Catholic Church teaches that hell is a place of punishment[118] brought about by a person's self exclusion from communion with God.[119] In some ancient Eastern Orthodox traditions, Hell and Heaven are distinguished not spatially, but by the relation of a person to God's love.
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 humans the awesome responsibility of their eternal destinies.[120] 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. For instance, 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.[121]
Idolatry[edit]
Despite Christians usually alleges different religions to be idolatrous, they have been pointed out by number of notable people to have been engaged in idolatry, the common practices of Christians that have been regarded as idolatry contains the use of images of Jesus, Mary, Saints, etc.[122]
Limbo[edit]
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that baptism is a necessity. In the 5th century, St. Augustine concluded that infants who die without baptism were consigned to hell.[123] 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 of that which they were deprived, and moreover enjoyed perfect natural happiness. 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".[124] In 2007, the 30-member International Theological Commission revisited the concept of limbo.[125][126] However, the commission also said that hopefulness was not the same as certainty about the destiny of such infants.[125] Rather, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1257, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."[127] Hope in the mercy of God is not the same as certainty through the sacraments, but it is not without result, as demonstrated in Jesus' statement to the thief on the cross in Luke 23:42-43.
The concept of limbo is not accepted by the Orthodox Church or by Protestants.[128]
Atonement[edit]
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?"[129] 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.[130] Responding to the criticism that he is "ignorant" of theology, Dawkins asks, "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"[131] 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."[132] 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."[133] 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.[134]
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".[135][136] 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.
The 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,[137] though as in this and other cases, illustrations are only cautiously intended to describe certain aspects of the atonement.[138]
Second Coming[edit]
Main article: Second Coming
Several verses in the New Testament appear to contain Jesus' predictions that the Second Coming would take place within a century following his death.[139] Jesus appears to promise for his followers the second coming to happen before the generation he is preaching to vanishes. This is seen as an essential failure in the teachings of Christ by many critics such as Bertrand Russell.[140]
However, Preterists argue that Jesus did not mean his second coming[Matt. 16:28] but speaks about demonstrations of his might, formulating this as "coming in his kingdom", especially the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple 70 AD, which he foretold, and by which time not all of his disciples were still living.[141] According to this view Matthew 10:23 should be understood in the same way.[142]
Inconsistency with Old Testament conception of the afterlife[edit]
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.[143] The presumption is that the deceased are inert, lifeless, and engaging in no activity.[143] However, two men, Enoch and Elijah, are taken into the afterlife without ever experiencing death.
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."[144] Obayashi alludes that the Israelites were satisfied with such a shadowy realm of afterlife because they were more deeply concerned with survival.[144]
Before Christianity began in the 1st century, the belief in an afterlife was already prevalent in Jewish thinking[145] among the Pharisees[146][147] and Essenes.[148] 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.
Criticism of Christians[edit]
See also: Anti-Christian sentiment
Negative attitudes in the United States[edit]
David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Institute, and Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Project published a study of attitudes of 16- to 29-year-old Americans towards Christianity. They found that about 38% of all those who were not regular churchgoers had negative impressions of Christianity, and especially evangelical Christianity, associating it with conservative political activism, hypocrisy, anti-homosexuality, authoritarianism, and judgmentalism.[149] About 17% had "very bad" perceptions of Christianity.[150][151]
Negative attitudes in Nazi Germany[edit]
The Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, among the most aggressive anti-Church Nazis, wrote that there was "an insoluble opposition between the Christian and a heroic-German world view".[152]
Nazi ideology was hostile to Christianity and clashed with Christian beliefs in many respects.[153] Nazism saw Christian ideals of meekness and conscience as obstacles to the violent instincts required to defeat other races.[153] The Nazis opposed Catholic teachings against racism, euthanasia and eugenics.
Aggressive anti-Church radicals like Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann saw the conflict with the Churches as a priority concern, and anti-church and anti-clerical sentiments were strong among grassroots party activists.[152] According to biographer Alan Bullock, Hitler, who had been raised Catholic, retained some regard for the organisational power of Catholicism - but had utter contempt for its central teachings, which he said, if taken to their conclusion, "would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.":[154]
The Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was anti-clerical and hostile to Christianity.[152][154]
In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.
— Extract from Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock
Joseph Goebbels, the Minister for Propaganda, was among the most aggressive anti-Church Nazi radicals. In 1928, soon after his election to the Reichstag, Goebbels wrote in his diary that National Socialism was a "religion" that needed a genius to uproot "outmoded religious practices" and put new ones in their place: "One day soon National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My Party is my church, and I believe I serve the Lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of slavery. That is my gospel."[155] Goebbels led the Nazi persecution of the German Catholic clergy and, as the war progressed, on the "Church Question", he wrote "after the war it has to be generally solved... There is, namely, an insoluble opposition between the Christian and a heroic-German world view".[152]
Hitler's chosen deputy and private secretary, Martin Bormann, was a rigid guardian of National Socialist orthodoxy and saw Christianity and Nazism as "incompatible" (mainly because of its Jewish origins),[153][156] as did the official Nazi philosopher, Alfred Rosenberg. In his "Myth of the Twentieth Century" (1930), Rosenberg wrote that the main enemies of the Germans were the "Russian Tartars" and "Semites" - with "Semites" including Christians, especially the Catholic Church.[157]
According to Bullock, Hitler considered the Protestant clergy to be "insignificant" and "submissive" and lacking in a religion to be taken seriously.[158] Kershaw wrote that the subjugation of the Protestant churches proved more difficult than Hitler had envisaged however. With 28 separate regional churches, his bid to create a unified Reich Church through Gleichschaltung ultimately failed, and Hitler became disinterested in supporting the so-called "German Christians" Nazi aligned movement. Hitler initially lent support to Ludwig Muller, a Nazi and former naval chaplain, to serve as Reich Bishop, but his heretical views against St Paul and the Semitic origins of Christ and the Bible (see Positive Christianity) quickly alienated sections of the Protestant church. Pastor Martin Neimoller responded with the Pastors Emergency League which re-affirmed the Bible. The movement grew into the Confessing Church, from which some clergymen opposed the Nazi regime.[159] Neimoller was arrested by the Gestapo in 1937, and sent to the Concentration Camps.[160] The Confessing Church seminary was prohibited that same year.[161]
Hypocrisy[edit]
Gaudium et spes claims that the example of Christians may be a contributory factor to atheism, writing, "…believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion."[162]
Secular and religious critics have accused many Christians of being hypocritical.[163] Tom Whiteman, a Philadelphia psychologist found that the primary reasons for Christian divorce include adultery, abuse (including substance, physical and verbal abuse), and abandonment whereas the number one reason cited for divorce in the general population was incompatibility.[164]
Bigotry[edit]
Protestant Christian dominated KKK hinting at violence toward Jews and Catholics. Illustration by Rev. Branford Clarke from Heroes of the Fiery Cross 1928 by Bishop Alma White published by the Pillar of Fire Church in Zarephath, NJ.
Conservative Christians are often accused of being intolerant by secular humanists and liberal Christians, claiming that they oppose science that seems to contradict scripture (Creationism, use of birth control, research into embryonic stem cells, etc.), liberal democracy (separation of church and state), and progressive social policies (rights of people of other races and religions, of women, and of people with different sexual orientations).[165][166][167][168]
Materialism[edit]
Instead of understanding and following the teachings of Jesus, the Christians argued and quarreled about the nature of Jesus’s divinity and about the Trinity. They called each other heretics and persecuted each other and cut each other’s heads off. There was a great and violent controversy at one time among different Christian sects over a certain diphthong. One party said that the word Homo-ousion should be used in a prayer; the other wanted Homoi-ousion-this difference had reference to the divinity of Jesus. Over this diphthong fierce war was raged and large numbers of people were slaughtered.
— Jawaharlal Nehru[169][170]
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time.
— Mahatma Gandhi[171]
Sectarianism[edit]
Main articles: Sectarianism and Christian denomination
Some have argued that Christianity is undermined by the inability of Christians to agree on matters of faith and church governance, and the tendency for the content of their faith to be determined by regional or political factors. Schopenhauer sarcastically suggested:
To the South German ecclesiastic the truth of the Catholic dogma is quite obvious, to the North German, the Protestant. If then, these convictions are based on objective reasons, the reasons must be climatic, and thrive, like plants, some only here, some only there. The convictions of those who are thus locally convinced are taken on trust and believed by the masses everywhere.[172]
Christians respond that Ecumenism has helped bring together such communities, where in the past mistranslations of Christological Greek terms may have resulted in seemingly different views. Non-denominational Christianity represents another approach towards reducing the divisions within Christianity, although many Christian groups claiming to be non-denominational wind up with similar problems.
Persecution by Christians[edit]
Main articles: Christian debate on persecution and toleration and Christianity and violence
Individuals and groups throughout history have been persecuted by certain Christians (and Christian groups) based upon sex, sexual orientation, race, and religion (even within the bounds of Christianity itself). Many of the persecutors attempted to justify their actions with particular scriptural interpretations. During Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, important Christian theologians advocated religious persecution to varying degrees.[citation needed] However, Early modern Europe witnessed a turning point in the Christian debate on persecution and toleration. Nowadays all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration, and "look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension".[173]
Early Christianity was a minority religion in the Roman Empire and the early Christians were themselves persecuted during that time. After Constantine I converted to Christianity, it became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. Already under the reign of Constantine I, Christian heretics had been persecuted; beginning in the late 4th century AD also the ancient pagan religions were actively suppressed. In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.[174]
After the decline of the Roman Empire, the further Christianization of Europe was to a large extent peaceful.[175] However, encounters between Christians and Pagans were sometimes confrontational, and some Christian kings (Charlemagne, Olaf I of Norway) were known for their violence against pagans. In the late Middle Ages, the appearance of the Cathars and Bogomils in Europe laid the stage for the later witch-hunts. These (probably gnostic-influenced) sects were seen as heretics by the Catholic Church, and the Inquisition was established to counter them.
After the Protestant Reformation, the devastation caused by the partly religiously motivated wars (Thirty Years' War, English Civil War, French Wars of Religion) in Europe in the 17th century gave rise to the ideas of Religious toleration, Freedom of religion and Religious pluralism.
Response of apologists[edit]
Christians will sometimes point out that in their points of view, the wrongdoings of other Christians are not the fault of their religious scriptures but of those who have wrongly interpreted it. They posit that the mistakes of Christians do not refute the validity of their teachings, but merely proves their weakness and sinful nature, of which they then turn to Christ. Thus, according to them, the "Word of God" can still be true and valid without it having been accurately followed.[citation needed] According to Ron Sider, an Evangelical theologian, "The tragedy is that poll after poll by Gallup and Barna show that evangelicals live just like the world. Contrast that with what the New Testament says about what happens when people come to living faith in Christ. There's supposed to be radical transformation in the power of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 5:17, 1 Cor 10:13). The disconnect between our biblical beliefs and our practice is just, I think, heart-rending."[176]
Similar arguments are held by Roman Catholics against critics of the Catholic Church, or by other Christians defending their respective Churches.[citation needed] of the Church's structure. Roman Catholics will argue that Popes who were corrupt in the Middle Ages is not the fault of the position of the Papacy or of the fact that there are obedient Priests lower in the hierarchy, but the fault of the individual people who act as "God's representative on Earth". Such examples can be seen in Dante's Divine Comedy, where Roman Catholic Clergy who had practiced simony find themselves in the lower circles of hell.
Criticism by other religions[edit]
Hinduism[edit]
Statue of Raja Ram Mohan Roy at College Green, Bristol, UK.
Ram Mohan Roy criticized Christian doctrines, and asserted that how "unreasonable" and "self-contradictory" they are.[177] He further adds that people, even from India were embracing Christianity due to the economic hardship and weakness, just like European Jews were pressured to embrace Christianity, by both encouragement and force.[178]
Vivekananda regarded Christianity as "..collection of little bits of Indian thought. Ours is the religion of which Buddhism with all its greatness is a rebel child, and of which Christianity is a very patchy imitation."[179]
Philosopher Dayanand Saraswati, regarded Christianity as "barbarous religion, and a 'false religion' religion believed only by fools and by the people in a state of barbarism,"[180] he included that Bible contains many stories and precepts that are immoral, praising cruelty, deceit and encouraging sin.[181]
Highly acclaimed Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, writes :-
Unfortunately Christian religion inherited the Semitic creed of the ‘jealous God’ in the view of Christ as ‘the only begotten son of God’ so could not brook any rival near the throne. When Europe accepted the Christian religion, in spite of its own broad humanism, it accepted the fierce intolerance which is the natural result of belief in 'the truth once for all delivered to the saints.'[182]
Judaism[edit]
See also: Talmud
Moshe Halbertal in 2009.
Shlomo ben Aderet criticized Christianity, adding that it has lesser form of monotheism, and lacks a unified deity compared to Judaism.[183]
David Flusser viewed Christianity as "Cheaper Judaism" and highly anti-judaism, he also highlighted the "failure of christianity to convert the Jewish people to the new message" as "precisely the reason for the strong anti-jewish trend in christianity."[184]
Professor Moshe Halbertal, regards Christianity to be "idolatrous religion," and he further adds that the idolatry by Christians "opened the door to the easing of many other restrictive prohibitions."[185]
Stephen Samuel Wise in his own words was critical towards Christian community, for their failure to rescue Jews, from Europe, during Nazi rule. He wrote that:-
A Christian world that will permit millions of Jews to be slain without moving heaven by prayer and earth in every human way to save its Jews has lost its capacity for moral and spiritual survival.[186]
Islam[edit]
Islam's prophet Muhammad said that Christians had to follow one God, but they have made multiple, he said:-
They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God.[187]
Muslim scholars have criticized Christianity, usually for its Trinity concept. They argue that this doctrine is an invention, distortion of the idea about God, and presentation of the idea that there are three gods.[188]
Origins[edit]
See also: Historicity of Jesus, Christ myth theory and Christianity and Paganism
Some have argued that Christianity is not founded on a historical Jesus, but rather on a mythical creation.[189] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of Hellenistic mystery cults that acknowledged the non-historic nature of their deity using it instead as a teaching device.[190] Author Brian Branston has argued that Christianity adopted many mythological tales and traditions into its views of Jesus. According to Branston these traditions, largely from Greco-Roman religions, have parallels to the story of Jesus.[191] However, the position that Jesus was not a historical figure is essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship.[192]
Scholars and historians such as James H. Charlesworth caution against using parallels with life-death-rebirth gods in the widespread mystery religions prevalent in the Hellenistic culture to conclude that Jesus is a purely legendary figure. Charlesworth argues that "it would be foolish to continue to foster the illusion that the Gospels are merely fictional stories like the legends of Hercules and Asclepius. The theologies in the New Testament are grounded on interpretations of real historical events…"[193]
See also[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Criticism of Christianity
Anti-Catholicism
Anti-Christian sentiment
Anti-clericalism
Anti-Protestantism
Antireligion
Antitheism
Biblical cosmology
Biblical literalism
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Christianity and multiculturalism
Criticism of Jesus
Christ myth theory
Internal consistency of the Bible
Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Browning, W.R.F. "Biblical criticism." A Dictionary of the Bible. 1997 Encyclopedia.com. 8 Apr. 2010
2.^ Jump up to: a b Robinson, B.A. Biblical Criticism, including Form Criticism, Tradition Criticism, Higher Criticism, etc. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2008. Web: 8 Apr 2010.
3.^ Jump up to: a b Mather, G.A. & L.A. Nichols, Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult, Zondervan (1993) (quoted in Robinson, Biblical Criticism
4.Jump up ^ See for example the list of alleged contradictions from The Skeptic's Annotated Bible and Robert G. Ingersoll's article Inspiration Of Bible.
5.Jump up ^ M.W.J. Phelan. The Inspiration of the Pentateuch, Two-edged Sword Publications (March 9, 2005) ISBN 978-0-9547205-6-8
6.Jump up ^ Ronald D. Witherup, Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know, Liturgical Press (2001), page 26.
7.Jump up ^ France, R.T., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England (1985), pg. 17.
8.Jump up ^ Britannica Encyclopedia, Jesus Christ, p.17
9.^ Jump up to: a b c Lindsell, Harold. "The Battle for the Bible", Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA (1976), pg. 38.
10.^ Jump up to: a b c Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
11.Jump up ^ As in 2 Timothy 3:16, discussed by Thompson, Mark (2006). A Clear and Present Word. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove: Apollos. p. 92. ISBN 1-84474-140-0.
12.Jump up ^ Norman L. Geisler, William E. Nix (2012), From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible, Moody Publishers, p. PT45, ISBN 978-0802483928 "faith and practice"
13.Jump up ^ See notably Grudem, representative of recent scholarship with this emphasis (Grudem, Wayne (1994). Systematic Theology. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press. pp. 90–105. ISBN 978-0-85110-652-6.).
14.Jump up ^ Till, Farrell (1991). "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled". Internet Infidels. Retrieved 2007-01-16.
15.Jump up ^ W. H. Bellinger; William Reuben Farmer, eds. (1998). Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Trinity Press. ISBN 9781563382307. Retrieved 2 August 2013. "Did Jesus of Nazareth live and die without the teaching about the righteous Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 having exerted any significant influence on his ministry? Is it probable that this text exerted no significant influence upon Jesus' understanding of the plan of God to save the nations that the prophet Isaiah sets forth?" —Two questions addressed in a conference on "Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins" at Baylor University in the fall of 1995, the principal papers of which are available in "Jesus and the Suffering Servant."
16.Jump up ^ Peter W. Stoner, Science Speaks, Moody Pr, 1958, ISBN 0-8024-7630-9
17.Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L. (2002). did not accomplish%22 Understanding the Bible (6 ed.). McGraw-Hill College. pp. 376–377. ISBN 9780767429160. Retrieved 2 August 2013. (Further snippets of quote: B C D)
18.^ Jump up to: a b Biography of Isaac ben Abraham of Troki
19.Jump up ^ Chizzuk Emunah, TorahLab Store
20.Jump up ^ Pascal, Blaise (1958). Pensees. Translator W. F. Trotter. chapter x, xii, xiii.
21.Jump up ^ McDowell, Josh (1999). "chapter 8". The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Thomas Nelson. ISBN 9781850785521.
22.Jump up ^ See, for example, the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15
23.Jump up ^ For instance "What's wrong with being gay?" at ChristianAnswers.net argues that the Old Testament prohibitions against homosexuality are renewed in the New Testament
24.Jump up ^ For example, Theonomy: What it is; What it is not
25.Jump up ^ Bruce Metzger, cited in The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel
26.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins. p. 91. ISBN 9780060738174. Retrieved 2 August 2013.
27.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. New York: Oxford U. Press, 1993
28.Jump up ^ Wallace, Daniel B. "The Gospel According to Bart: A Review Article of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 2006 (also available at Bible.org) Craig L. Blomberg, "Review of Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why," Denver Seminary, February 2006
Howe, Thomas (2006). "A Response To Bart D_ Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus". International Society of Christian Apologetics. p. PDF download. Retrieved 31 July 2013.
29.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2006). Whose Word Is It?. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 0-8264-9129-4. p. 166
30.Jump up ^ Bruce Metzger "A Textual Commentary on the New Testament", Second Edition, 1994, German Bible Society
31.^ Jump up to: a b K. Aland and B. Aland, "The Text Of The New Testament: An Introduction To The Critical Editions & To The Theory & Practice Of Modern Text Criticism", 1995, op. cit., p. 29-30.
32.^ Jump up to: a b c "English Handbook Page 34 999KB" (PDF).
33.Jump up ^ Dialogue of Trypho Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, LXIII
34.Jump up ^ Matthew 1:23 compare multiple versions and languages
35.Jump up ^ Interlinear Hebrew in English order
36.Jump up ^ The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
37.Jump up ^ Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article Virgin Birth of Christ
38.Jump up ^ Charles D. Isbell, Biblical Archaeological Review, June 1977, "Does the Gospel of Matthew Proclaim Mary’s Virginity?"
39.Jump up ^ Martin Luther, "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew," in Luther's Works, vol. 45: The Christian in Society II, ed. H. T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1962).
40.Jump up ^ See also "Given the New Testament a Chance?" from the Messiah Truth website
41.^ Jump up to: a b David Sper, Managing Editor, "Questions Skeptics Ask About Messianic Prophecies," RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids, MI, 1997
42.Jump up ^ See Psalms 22:6-8,22:13; 69:8, 69:20-21; Isaiah 11:1, 49:7, 53:2-3,53:8; Daniel 9:26
43.Jump up ^ Hume, David (2000). "Chapter 10. Of Religion". In Tom L. Beauchamp. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: A Critical Edition. Volume 3 of The Clarendon edition of the works of David Hume (Oxford University Press). p. 86. ISBN 9780198250609. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
44.Jump up ^ *Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas, Vol. 1 (ISBN 1-878997-67-X) Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas, Vol. 2 (ISBN 187899767X)
45.Jump up ^ Bruce L. Flamm, MD (2004). "Inherent Dangers of Faith-Healing Studies". The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine.
46.Jump up ^ "Are Miracles Logically Impossible?". Come Reason Ministries, Convincing Christianity. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
47.Jump up ^ ""Miracles are not possible," some claim. Is this true?". ChristianAnswers.net. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
48.Jump up ^ Paul K. Hoffman. "A Jurisprudential Analysis Of Hume’s "in Principal" Argument Against Miracles" (PDF). Christian Apologetics Journal, Volume 2, No. 1, Spring, 1999; Copyright ©1999 by Southern Evangelical Seminary. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 26, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
49.Jump up ^ Melvin E. Page, Penny M. Sonnenburg (2003). Colonialism: an international, social, cultural, and political encyclopedia, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 496. "Of all religions, Christianity has been most associated with colonialism because several of its forms (Catholicism and Protestantism) were the religions of the European powers engaged in colonial enterprise on a global scale."
50.Jump up ^ Bevans, Steven. "Christian Complicity in Colonialism/ Globalism" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-11-17. "The modern missionary era was in many ways the ‘religious arm’ of colonialism, whether Portuguese and Spanish colonialism in the sixteenth Century, or British, French, German, Belgian or American colonialism in the nineteenth. This was not all bad — oftentimes missionaries were heroic defenders of the rights of indigenous peoples"
51.Jump up ^ Andrews, Edward (2010). "Christian Missions and Colonial Empires Reconsidered: A Black Evangelist in West Africa, 1766–1816". Journal of Church & State 51 (4): 663–691. doi:10.1093/jcs/csp090. "Historians have traditionally looked at Christian missionaries in one of two ways. The first church historians to catalogue missionary history provided hagiographic descriptions of their trials, successes, and sometimes even martyrdom. Missionaries were thus visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery. However, by the middle of the twentieth century, an era marked by civil rights movements, anti-colonialism, and growing secularization, missionaries were viewed quite differently. Instead of godly martyrs, historians now described missionaries as arrogant and rapacious imperialists. Christianity became not a saving grace but a monolithic and aggressive force that missionaries imposed upon defiant natives. Indeed, missionaries were now understood as important agents in the ever-expanding nation-state, or “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them."
52.Jump up ^ Meador, Jake. "Cosmetic Christianity and the Problem of Colonialism – Responding to Brian McLaren". Retrieved 17 November 2010. "According to Jake Meador, "some Christians have tried to make sense of post-colonial Christianity by renouncing practically everything about the Christianity of the colonizers. They reason that if the colonialists’ understanding of Christianity could be used to justify rape, murder, theft, and empire then their understanding of Christianity is completely wrong."
53.Jump up ^ Conquistadors, Michael Wood, p. 20, BBC Publications, 2000
54.^ Jump up to: a b c d Robinson, B. A. (2006). "Christianity and slavery". Retrieved 2007-01-03.
55.Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia Slavery and Christianity
56.^ Jump up to: a b Ostling, Richard N. (2005-09-17). "Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible?". Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News (Associated Press). Retrieved 28 October 2014.
57.Jump up ^ Jack D. Forbes (1993), Africans and Native Americans: The Language of Race and the Evolution of Red-Black Peoples, University of Illinois Press, p. 27, ISBN 978-0252063213
58.Jump up ^ Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery ISBN 978-0-691-11436-1 (2003)
59.Jump up ^ Lamin Sanneh, Abolitionists Abroad: American Blacks and the Making of Modern West Africa, Harvard University Press ISBN 978-0-674-00718-5 (2001)
60.Jump up ^ Ostling, Richard N. (2005-09-17). "Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible?". Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
61.Jump up ^ "Abolitionist Movement". MSN Encyclopedia Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
62.Jump up ^ Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books.
63.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
64.Jump up ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy", Chalcedon Blog, 6 September 2007.
65.Jump up ^ "Civil Rights Movement in the United States". MSN Encyclopedia Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
66.Jump up ^ "Religious Revivalism in the Civil Rights Movement". African American Review. Winter 2002. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
67.Jump up ^ "Martin Luther King: The Nobel Peace Prize 1964". The Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2006-01-03.
68.Jump up ^ Thurston, Herbert. St. Joan of Arc. 1910. Catholic Encyclopedia
69.Jump up ^ Feminist philosophy of religion
70.Jump up ^ "The Status Of Women In The Old Testament".
71.Jump up ^ The Woman's Bible
72.Jump up ^ Clark, Elizabeth. Women in the Early Church. Liturgical Press, 1984. ISBN 0-8146-5332-4
73.Jump up ^ Jesus' Family Tree
74.^ Jump up to: a b "King, Karen L. "Women in Ancient Christianity: the New Discoveries." Karen L. King is Professor of New Testament Studies and the History of Ancient Christianity at Harvard University in the Divinity School.
75.Jump up ^ Stagg, Evelyn and Frank. Woman in the World of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978. ISBN 0-664-24195-6
76.Jump up ^ Bilezikian, Gilbert. Beyond Sex Roles (2nd ed.) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1989, ISBN 978-0-8010-0885-6. pp. 82–104
77.Jump up ^ Schalom Ben-Chorin.Brother Jesus: the Nazarene through Jewish eyes. U of Georgia Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-8203-2256-8, p.66
78.Jump up ^ See "About the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus".
79.Jump up ^ Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
80.Jump up ^ Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (eds.). Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. IVP 2004. p. 17.
81.Jump up ^ Grudem, Wayne A. "Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), 47/2 (June 2004) 299–346
82.Jump up ^ Eck, Diana L. Encountering God: A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras. (2003) p. 98
83.^ Jump up to: a b Brumley, Mark. "Why God is Father and not Mother". The Catholic Faith Magazine. July/August 1999. Accessed 25 Feb 2013
84.^ Jump up to: a b "Baptist Faith and Message"
85.Jump up ^ (non-English) - The second image shows deaconnesses, on August 15th, for the prayers on the day of the Assumption of Mary
86.Jump up ^ The 9 Most Important Issues Facing the Evangelical Church
87.Jump up ^ See, for example, Everybody's Talkin' About Christian Fascism by Gary Leupp.
88.Jump up ^ George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism
89.Jump up ^ Clarke, Arthur C. & Watts, Alan (January), “At the Interface: Technology and Mysticism”, Playboy (Chicago, Ill.: HMH Publishing) 19 (1): 94, ISSN 0032-1478, OCLC 3534353
90.Jump up ^ Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion?, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2007, ISBN 978-0-281-05927-0
91.Jump up ^ Luke 6
92.Jump up ^ Peoples, Dr., Glenn Andrew. "Whittling down the pacifist narrative: Did early Christians serve in the army?". www.rightreason.org. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
93.Jump up ^ 1Kings 18:17-46
94.Jump up ^ Deuteronomy 17:5
95.Jump up ^ Psalm 18:37
96.Jump up ^ International encyclopedia of violence research, Volume 2. Springer. 2003.
97.^ Jump up to: a b J. Denny Weaver (2001). "Violence in Christian Theology". Cross Currents. Retrieved 28 October 2014. ""[3rd paragraph] I am using broad definitions of the terms "violence" and "nonviolence." "Violence" means harm or damage, which obviously includes the direct violence of killing – in war, capital punishment, murder – but also covers the range of forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism. "Nonviolence" also covers a spectrum of attitudes and actions, from the classic Mennonite idea of passive nonresistance through active nonviolence and nonviolent resistance that would include various kinds of social action, confrontations and posing of alternatives that do not do bodily harm or injury."
98.Jump up ^ Sam Harris (2006). Letter to a Christian Nation. Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 80–81. ISBN 978-0-307-26577-7.
99.Jump up ^ War, A Catholic Dictionary: Containing some Account of the Doctrine, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies, Councils, and Religious Orders of the Catholic Church, W. E Addis, T. Arnold, Revised T. B Scannell and P. E Hallett, 15th Edition, Virtue & Co, 1953, Nihil Obstat: Reginaldus Philips, Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, 2 October 1950, "In the Name of God : Violence and Destruction in the World's Religions", M. Jordan, 2006, p. 40[unreliable source?]
100.Jump up ^ Quotation: "The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science." (p. 7), from the essay by Colin A. Russell "The Conflict Thesis" in Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0".
101.Jump up ^ Quotation: "In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the "warfare between science and religion" and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science." (p. 195) Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press Chicago, Ill.
102.Jump up ^ Quotation: "In its traditional forms, the [conflict] thesis has been largely discredited." (p. 42) Brooke, J.H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
103.Jump up ^ Quotation from Ferngren's introduction at "Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.": "…while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind." (p. x)
104.Jump up ^ Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
105.Jump up ^ From Ferngren's introduction:
"…while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind. (p. x)-Gary Ferngren, (2002); Introduction, p. ix)
106.Jump up ^ Sagan, Carl. Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, Episode 3: "The Harmony of the Worlds"
107.Jump up ^ quoted in Ted Peters, Science and Religion, Encyclopedia of Religion, p.8182
108.Jump up ^ Petto, Andrew J.; Godfrey, Laurie R. (2007). Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0393050904.
109.Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (1992). Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History. New York: Norton. pp. 432–447. ISBN 039330857X.
110.Jump up ^ The compass in this 13th-century manuscript is a symbol of God's act of Creation.
* Thomas Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, (Washington, DC: Regenery, 2005), ISBN 0-89526-038-7
111.Jump up ^ Howard W. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers, Indiana University Press, 2003, p. 12
112.Jump up ^ William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway Books (1994) pages 38-39.
113.Jump up ^ "Let no cultured person draw near, none wise and none sensible, for all that kind of thing we count evil; but if any man is ignorant, if any man is wanting in sense and culture, if anybody is a fool, let him come boldly [to become a Christian]. Celsus, AD178
114.Jump up ^ "Since we all inherit Adam's sin, we all deserve eternal damnation. All who die unbaptized, even infants, will go to hell and suffer unending torment. We have no reason to complain of this, since we are all wicked. (In the Confessions, the Saint enumerates the crimes of which he was guilty in the cradle.) But by God's free grace certain people, among those who have been baptized, are chosen to go to heaven; these are the elect. They do not go to heaven because they are good; we are all totally depraved, except insofar as God's grace, which is only bestowed on the elect, enables us to be otherwise. No reason can be given why some are saved and the rest damned; this is due to God's unmotivated choice. Damnation proves God's justice; salvation His mercy. Both equally display His goodness." A history of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, Simon & Schuster, 1945
115.Jump up ^ Bible Teaching and Religious Practice essay: "Europe and Elsewhere," Mark Twain, 1923)
116.Jump up ^ Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27
117.Jump up ^ What do Orthodox Christians teach about death and when we die?
118.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1035, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, ISBN 0-89243-565-8,1994-the revised version issued 1997 has no changes in this section
119.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, ISBN 0-89243-565-8,1994
120.Jump up ^ Richard Beck. "Christ and Horrors, Part 3: Horror Defeat, Universalism, and God's Reputation". Experimental Theology. March 19, 2007.
121.Jump up ^ Jonathan Kvanvig, The Problem of Hell, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-508487-0, 1993
122.Jump up ^ "The Works of Thomas Manton", by Thomas Manton, p. 99
123.Jump up ^ Cultural Anxieties over the Child in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries by William F. MacLehose
124.Jump up ^ Canon Law 1983
125.^ Jump up to: a b CNS STORY: Vatican commission: Limbo reflects 'restrictive view of salvation'
126.Jump up ^ n:Vatican abolishes Limbo
127.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday. 1994. p. 845. ISBN 0-385-47967-0.
128.Jump up ^ Limbo: Recent statements by the Catholic church; Protestant views on Limbo at Religioustolerance.org
129.Jump up ^ Root of All Evil? (2006) (TV)-Memorable quotes
130.Jump up ^ McGrath, Alister (2004). Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing. p. 81. ISBN 1-4051-2538-1.
131.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (September 17, 2007). "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?". RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved 2007-11-14.
132.Jump up ^ Marianna Krejci-Papa, 2005. "Taking On Dawkins' God:An interview with Alister McGrath." Science & Theology News, 2005–04–25.
133.Jump up ^ Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great About Christianity, Regnery Publishing, ISBN 1-59698-517-8 (2007)
134.Jump up ^ Andrew Wilson, Deluded by Dawkins?, Kingsway Publications, ISBN 978-1-84291-355-0 (2007)
135.Jump up ^ A Biographical Appreciation of Robert Green Ingersoll: Chapter 11
136.Jump up ^ Brandt, Eric T., and Timothy Larsen (2011). "The Old Atheism Revisited: Robert G. Ingersoll and the Bible". Journal of the Historical Society 11 (2): 211–238. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5923.2011.00330.x.
137.Jump up ^ More Than A Carpenter, Tyndale House, Wheaton, Illinois, 1977, ISBN 978-0-8423-4552-1
138.Jump up ^ Jeffery, Steve; Ovey, Michael; Sach, Andrew (2007). Pierced for our transgressions. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press. ch. 13. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6.
139.Jump up ^ Most notably, Matthew 10:22-23, 16:27-28, 23:36, 24:29-34, 26:62-64; Mark 9:1, 14:24-30, 14:60-62; and Luke 9:27
140.Jump up ^ In his famous essay Why I Am Not a Christian
141.Jump up ^ Dr. Knox Chamblin, Professor of New Testament Emeritus, Columbia Theological Seminary: Commentary on Matthew 16:21-28 - see last 4 paragraphs
142.Jump up ^ Theodor Zahn, F.F. Bruce, J. Barton Payne, etc. hold this opinion - What is the meaning of Matthew 10:23?
143.^ Jump up to: a b From Witchcraft to Justice: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament, George E. Mendenhall.
144.^ Jump up to: a b Hiroshi Obayashi, Death and Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions. See Introduction.
145.Jump up ^ Jewish eschatology#Olam Haba - the afterlife and the world to come Jewish eschatology: The afterlife and olam haba
146.Jump up ^ Acts 23:6-8
147.Jump up ^ Pharisees#Pharisaic principles and values Pharisees: Pharisaic Principles and Values
148.Jump up ^ Essenes#Rules, customs, theology and beliefs Essenes: Rules, customs, theology and beliefs
149.Jump up ^ About 91% of young outsiders felt Christians were anti-homosexual, 87% felt Christians were judgemental and 85% thought Christians were hypocritical.
150.Jump up ^ unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity… and Why It Matters, David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, Baker Books, October 1, 2007, ISBN 0-8010-1300-3
151.Jump up ^ Who Do People Say We Are? It doesn't hurt to listen to what non-Christians think of us., A Christianity Today editorial, Christianity Today, December 12, 2007
152.^ Jump up to: a b c d Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p.381-382
153.^ Jump up to: a b c Encyclopedia Britannica Online: Fascism - Identification with Christianity; 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2013
154.^ Jump up to: a b Alan Bullock; Hitler: A Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p219
155.Jump up ^ American Experience . The Man Behind Hitler . Transcript | PBS
156.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Martin Bormann; web 25 April 2013
157.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Alfred Rosenberg; web 25 April 2013.
158.Jump up ^ Alan Bullock; Hitler: A Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p219"
159.Jump up ^ Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p.295-297
160.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Martin Niemöller; web 24 April 2013
161.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Dietrich Bonhoeffer; web 25 April 2013
162.Jump up ^ Gaudium et spes, 19
163.Jump up ^ The Evangelical Scandal – Christianity Today
164.Jump up ^ Marriage 103: The Raw Reality of Divorce and its Terrible Results
165.Jump up ^ Chip Berlet, "Following the Threads," in Ansell, Amy E. Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics, pp. 24, Westview Press, 1998, ISBN 0-8133-3147-1
166.Jump up ^ "MPs turn attack back on Cardinal Pell". Sydney Morning Herald. 2007-06-06.
167.Jump up ^ "Pope warns Bush on stem cells". BBC News. 2001-07-23.
168.Jump up ^ Andrew Dickson, White (1898). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. p. X. Theological Opposition to Inoculation, Vaccination, and the Use of Anaesthetics.
169.Jump up ^ In his book "Glimpses of world history", p. 86-87
170.Jump up ^ "Secularism and Hindutva, a Discursive Study", by A. A. Parvathy, p.42
171.Jump up ^ As quoted by William Rees-Mogg 4 April 2005 edition of The Times. Gandhi here makes reference to a statement of Jesus: “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:13)
172.Jump up ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur; trans. T. Bailey Saunders. "Religion: A Dialogue". The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer.
173.Jump up ^ see e.g.: John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration on Protestant England 1558-1689, 2000, p. 206.
174.Jump up ^ see e.g.: John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration on Protestant England 1558-1689, 2000, p.22
175.Jump up ^ *Lutz E. von Padberg (1998), Die Christianisierung Europas im Mitterlalter, Reclam (German), p. 183
176.Jump up ^ The Evangelical Scandal
177.Jump up ^ "Raja Rammohun Roy: Encounter with Islam and Christianity and the Articulation of Hindu Self-Consciousness. Page 166, by Abidullah Al-Ansari Ghazi, year = 2010
178.Jump up ^ "Raja Rammohun Roy: Encounter with Islam and Christianity and the Articulation of Hindu Self-Consciousness. Page 169, by Abidullah Al-Ansari Ghazi, year = 2010
179.Jump up ^ "Neo-Hindu Views of Christianity", p. 96, by Arvind Sharma, year = 1988
180.Jump up ^ "Gandhi on Pluralism and Communalism", by P. L. John Panicker, p.39, year = 2006
181.Jump up ^ "Dayānanda Sarasvatī, his life and ideas", p. 267, by J. T. F. Jordens
182.Jump up ^ The Philosophy of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, by Paul Arthur Schilpp, page = 641
183.Jump up ^ "Judaism and Other Religions", p. 88, publisher = Palgrave Macmillan
184.Jump up ^ Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus, by Miriam S. Taylor, p. 41
185.Jump up ^ "Idolatry", by Moshe Halbertal, p. 212
186.Jump up ^ Wise Criticizes Christian World for Failure to Rescue Jews in Nazi Europe 19 February 1943
187.Jump up ^ "Global Civilization: A Buddhist-Islamic Dialogue", by Daisaku Ikeda, Majid Tehranian, p. 36
188.Jump up ^ Christianity: An Introduction, p. 125, by Alister E. McGrath
189.Jump up ^ Examples of authors who argue the Jesus myth theory: Thomas L. Thompson The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (Jonathan Cape, Publisher, 2006); Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 36–72; John Mackinnon Robertson
190.Jump up ^ Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter (1999) The Jesus Mysteries. London: Thorsons (Harper Collins)
191.Jump up ^ Brian Branston, The Lost Gods of England
192.Jump up ^ Historian Michael Grant stated, "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." —Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Scribner, 1995). "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." —Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004, p.34.
Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, Eerdrmans (2004), page 24: "most scholars regard the argument for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response".
193.Jump up ^ Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) (2006). Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ISBN 0-8028-4880-X.
Further reading[edit]
This article's further reading may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive, less relevant or many publications with the same point of view; or by incorporating the relevant publications into the body of the article through appropriate citations. (August 2013)
Skeptical of Christianity[edit]
A Rationalist Encyclopaedia: A book of reference on religion, philosophy, ethics and science, Gryphon Books (1971).
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, by Daniel Dennett
Civilization and its discontents, by Sigmund Freud
Death and Afterlife, Perspectives of World Religions, by Hiroshi Obayashi
Einstein and Religion, by Max Jammer
From Jesus to Christianity, by L. Michael White
Future of an illusion, by Sigmund Freud
Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart Ehrman
Out of my later years and the World as I see it, by Albert Einstein
Russell on Religion, by Louis Greenspan (Includes most all of Russell's essays on religion)
The Antichrist, by Friedrich Nietzsche
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God, by Carl Sagan
Understanding the Bible, by Stephen L Harris
Where God and Science Meet [Three Volumes]: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion, by Patrick McNamara
Why I am not a Christian and other essays, by Bertrand Russell
Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, by John W. Loftus (Prometheus Books, 2008)
The Christian Delusion, edited by John W. Loftus, foreword by Dan Barker (Prometheus Books, 2010)
The End of Christianity, edited by John W. Loftus (Prometheus Books, 2011)
The Historical Evidence for Jesus, by G. A. Wells (Prometheus Books, 1988)
The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty (Age of Reason Publications, 1999)
The encyclopedia of Biblical errancy, by C. Dennis McKinsey (Prometheus Books, 1995)
godless, by Dan Barker (Ulysses Press 2008)
The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (Element 1999)
The reason driven life by Robert M. Price (Prometheus Books, 2006)
The case against the case for Christ by Robert M. Price (American atheist press 2010)
God, the failed hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger (Prometheus Books, 2007)
Jesus never existed by Kenneth Humphreys (Iconoclast Press, 2005)
Defending Christianity[edit]
Main article: List of Christian apologetic works
"The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity" by John Warwick Montgomery. An Excerpt from "Evidence for Faith" Chapter 6, Part 2 http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm
"The Infidel Delusion" by Patrick Chan, Jason Engwer, Steve Hays, and Paul Manata http://www.calvindude.com/ebooks/InfidelDelusion.pdf
Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies, by David Bentley Hart
Dethroning Jesus, by Darrell Bock, Daniel B. Wallace
Jesus Among Other Gods, by Ravi Zacharias
Mere Christianity, by C. S. Lewis
Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton
Reasonable Faith, by William Lane Craig
Reinventing Jesus, by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace
The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel
The Dawkins Letters, by David Robertson
The Reason For God, by Timothy J Keller
External links[edit]
This section's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (August 2013)
General[edit]
Professor James Tabor's educational site on the Jewish Roman world of Jesus
Roman Sources on the Jews and Judaism, 1 BCE-110 CE
Skeptical[edit]
The Warfare of Science With Theology by Andrew White
New Testament contradictions by Paul Carlson
Christian Anti-Semitism
PBS Special: Apocalypse! Contains Jesus' apocalyptic promises along with those of Saint Paul's.
From other religions[edit]
Chizzuk Emunah (Faith Strengthened): English translation of Isaac of Troki's 16th-century Jewish anti-Christian polemic
Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: Unhistorical Character of the Gospels
Apologetic[edit]
Reasonable Faith http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer
Probe Ministries
Ravi Zacharias International Ministries http://www.rzim.org/
Stand to Reason http://www.str.org/site/PageServer
Reasons to Believe http://www.reasons.org/
Debates[edit]
"Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Richard Carrier (audio) http://www.philvaz.com/CraigCarrierDebate.mp3
The Great Debate: Does God Exist?-transcript in PDF of a formal debate between presuppositionalist Christian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein.
The Martin-Frame Debate A written debate between skeptic Michael Martin and Christian John Frame about the transcendental argument for the existence of God.
The Drange-Wilson Debate A written debate between skeptic Theodore Drange and Christian Douglas Wilson.
"Is Non-Christian Thought Futile?" A written debate between Christian Doug Jones and skeptics Keith Parsons and Michael Martin in Antithesis magazine (vol. 2, no. 4).
"Is Christianity Good for the World?" A written debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and theologian Douglas Wilson in Christianity Today magazine (web only, May 2007).
God Debate: Sam Harris vs. Rick Warren Debate between Christian Rick Warren and atheist Sam Harris as reported by Newsweek (April 9, 2007).
"Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off." A video debate between Christians Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and atheists Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor of the Rational Response Squad. Report of the debate posted on the Nightline website. Video of the debate posted on The Way of the Master website.
The Jesseph-Craig Debate: Does God Exist? (1996)-Transcripts of a debate between Christian William Lane Craig and atheist Douglas M. Jesseph.
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Christianity
Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.
Category
Portal icon
WikiProject
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Criticism of religion
Categories: Criticism of Christianity
Criticism of religion
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Español
Français
한국어
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
Edit links
This page was last modified on 15 May 2015, at 13:21.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Christianity
Criticism of Christianity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about criticism of the doctrines and practices of Christianity. For negative attitudes towards Christians, see Anti-Christian sentiment.
Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd
Jesus ·
Christ
[show]
Bible ·
Foundations
[show]
Theology[show]
History ·
Tradition
[show]
Related topics[show]
Denominations ·
Groups
[show]
Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
t ·
e
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion
By religion
Buddhism ·
Christianity (Catholicism ·
Jehovah's Witnesses ·
Seventh-day Adventist)
·
Protestantism ·
Hinduism ·
Islam (Twelver Islam)
·
Jainism ·
Judaism ·
Mormonism ·
Sikhism
By religious figure
Jesus ·
Moses ·
Muhammad ·
Ellen G. White
By text
Bible ·
Book of Mormon ·
Quran ·
Talmud
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
Giordano Bruno ·
Richard Dawkins ·
Denis Diderot ·
Epicurus ·
Ludwig Feuerbach ·
Stephen Fry ·
Sita Ram Goel ·
Emma Goldman ·
Sam Harris ·
Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
Christopher Hitchens ·
Baron d'Holbach ·
David Hume ·
Robert G. Ingersoll ·
Karl Marx ·
Friedrich Nietzsche ·
Michel Onfray ·
Thomas Paine ·
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
Ayn Rand ·
André Servier ·
David Silverman ·
Max Stirner ·
Bertrand Russell ·
Dayananda Saraswati ·
Victor J. Stenger ·
Voltaire
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
War ·
Buddhism ·
Christianity ·
Islam ·
Judaism ·
Mormonism
Related topics
Abuse ·
Apostasy ·
Crisis of faith ·
Criticism of atheism ·
Criticism of monotheism ·
Persecution ·
Sexuality ·
Slavery
v ·
t ·
e
Criticism of Christianity varies from the criticism of Christian beliefs, teachings, history, activities, and terrorism. Throughout the history of Christianity, many have criticized Christianity, the church, Jesus, Christian Bible, Christians and other elements of Christianity.
The formal response of Christians to such criticisms is described as Christian apologetics. Several areas of criticism also include the claims of scripture itself, the ethics of biblical interpretations that have been used historically to justify certain attitudes and behaviors, the question of the religion's compatibility with science, and other Christian doctrines. The criticism came from the various religious and non-religious groups around the world, some of whom were themselves Christians.
Contents [hide]
1 Scripture 1.1 Biblical criticism
1.2 Judaic view: Unfulfilled prophecy
1.3 Selective interpretation
1.4 Textual corruption
1.5 Mistranslation 1.5.1 Translation of Almah as Virgin
1.5.2 Prophecy of the Nazarene
2 Miracles
3 Ethics 3.1 Colonialism
3.2 Slavery
3.3 Christianity and women
3.4 Christianity and politics
3.5 Christianity and violence
4 Science
5 Doctrine 5.1 Incarnation
5.2 Hell and damnation
5.3 Idolatry
5.4 Limbo
5.5 Atonement
5.6 Second Coming
5.7 Inconsistency with Old Testament conception of the afterlife
6 Criticism of Christians 6.1 Negative attitudes in the United States
6.2 Negative attitudes in Nazi Germany
6.3 Hypocrisy
6.4 Bigotry
6.5 Materialism
6.6 Sectarianism
6.7 Persecution by Christians
6.8 Response of apologists
7 Criticism by other religions 7.1 Hinduism
7.2 Judaism
7.3 Islam
8 Origins
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading 11.1 Skeptical of Christianity
11.2 Defending Christianity
12 External links 12.1 General
12.2 Skeptical
12.3 From other religions
12.4 Apologetic
12.5 Debates
Scripture[edit]
See also: Criticism of the Bible
Biblical criticism[edit]
See also: Biblical criticism, The Bible and History and Internal consistency and the Bible
Biblical criticism, in particular higher criticism, covers a variety of methods used since the Enlightenment in the early 18th century as scholars began to apply to biblical documents the same methods and perspectives which had already been applied to other literary and philosophical texts.[1] It is an umbrella term covering various techniques used mainly by mainline and liberal Christian theologians to study the meaning of biblical passages. It uses general historical principles, and is based primarily on reason rather than revelation or faith. There are four primary types of biblical criticism:[2]
Form criticism: an analysis of literary documents, particularly the Bible, to discover earlier oral traditions (stories, legends, myths, etc.) upon which they were based.
Tradition criticism: an analysis of the Bible, concentrating on how religious traditions grew and changed over the time span during which the text was written.
Higher criticism: the study of the sources and literary methods employed by the biblical authors.[3][2]
Lower criticism: the discipline and study of the actual wording of the Bible; a quest for textual purity and understanding.[3]
Inconsistencies have been pointed out by critics and skeptics,[4] 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 assertions 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,[5][6] but the Gospels by four independent witnesses,[7] and all of the Pauline Epistles, except possibly the Hebrews, as having been written by Paul the Apostle.
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."[8]
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).[9] He indicates there are expressly false statements in the Bible which are reported accurately[9] (for example, Satan is a liar whose lies are accurately reported as to what he actually said).[9] 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.[10]:Art. VIII
Those who believe in the inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible (or inerrant), that is, free from error in the truths it expresses by its character as the word of God.[11] However, the scope of what this encompasses is disputed, as the term includes 'faith and practice' positions, with some denominations holding that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors.[12] Other scholars take stronger views,[13] but for a few verses these positions require more exegetical work, leading to dispute (compare the serious debate over the related issue of perspicuity, attracting biblical and philosophical discussion).
Infallibility refers to the original texts of the Bible, and all mainstream scholars acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation; yet, through use textual criticism modern (critical) copies are considered to "faithfully represent the original",[10]:Art. X and our understanding of the original language sufficiently well for accurate translation. The opposing view is that there is too much corruption, or translation too difficult, to agree with modern texts.
Judaic view: Unfulfilled prophecy[edit]
God reveals himself to Abraham in scripture and he is seen here with three angels. By Giovanni Battista Tiepolo.
Hundreds of years before the time of Jesus, Jewish prophets promised that a messiah would come. Judaism claims that Jesus did not fulfill these prophecies. Other skeptics usually claim that the prophecies are either vague or unfulfilled,[14] or that the Old Testament writings influenced the composition of New Testament narratives.[15] Christian apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, which they argue are nearly impossible to fulfill by chance.[16] Many Christians anticipate the Second Coming of Jesus, when he will fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy, such as the Last Judgment, the general resurrection, establishment of the Kingdom of God, and the Messianic Age (see the article on Preterism for contrasting Christian views).
The New Testament traces Jesus' line to that of David; however, according to Stephen L. Harris:[17]
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, 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, making Jesus' crucifixion a "stumbling block" to scripturally literate Jews. (1 Cor.1:23)
Christian preachers counter this argument by stating that these prophecies will be fulfilled by Jesus in the Millennial Reign after the Great Tribulation, according to New Testament prophecies, especially in the Book of Revelation.
The 16th-century Jewish theologian Isaac ben Abraham, who lived in Trakai, Lithuania, penned a work called Chizzuk Emunah (Faith Strengthened) that attempted to refute the ideas that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament and that Christianity was the "New Covenant" of God. He systematically identified a number of inconsistencies in the New Testament, contradictions between the New Testament and the Old Testament, and Old Testament prophesies which remained unfulfilled in Jesus' lifetime. In addition, he questioned a number of Christian practices, such as Sunday Sabbath.[18] Written originally for Jews to persuade them not to convert to Christianity,[19] the work was eventually read by Christians. While the well-known Christian Hebraist Johann Christoph Wagenseil attempted an elaborate refutation of Abraham's arguments, Wagenseil's Latin translation of it only increased interest in the work and inspired later Christian freethinkers. Chizzuk Emunah was praised as a masterpiece by Voltaire.[18]
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.[20] 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, see also Rejection of Jesus) laments that the Messiah had not appeared despite the scepter being taken away from Judah.[21]
Selective interpretation[edit]
See also: Expounding of the Law, Biblical law in Christianity and Cafeteria 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 entire Mosaic Law is described in Galatians 3:24-25 as a tutor which is no longer necessary, according to some interpretations, see also Antinomianism in the New Testament.
On the other hand, many of the Old Testament laws are seen as specifically abrogated by the New Testament, such as circumcision,[22] though this may simply be a parallel to Jewish Noahide Laws. See also Split of early Christianity and Judaism. On the other hand, other passages are pro-Law, such as Romans 3:31: "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law." See also Pauline passages opposing antinomianism.
There are a number of positions which are taken in response to these critics:
Some argue that the specific principles invoked by Christians are endorsed or renewed in the New Testament.[23]
Others argue that the Old Testament law applies, except as modified by the New Testament.[24]
Textual corruption[edit]
See also: Biblical criticism and Textual criticism
Within the abundance of biblical manuscripts exist a number of textual variants. The vast majority of these textual variants are the inconsequential misspelling of words, word order variations[25] and the mistranscription of abbreviations.[26] Text critics such as Bart D. Ehrman have proposed that some of these textual variants and interpolations were theologically motivated.[27] Ehrman's conclusions and textual variant choices have been challenged by reviewers, including Daniel B. Wallace, Craig Blomberg and Thomas Howe.[28]
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. These possible later additions include the following:[29][30]
The ending of Mark[Mk. 16]
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
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 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.[31] 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."[31]
With the discovery of the Hebrew Bible texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, questions have been raised about the textual accuracy of the Masoretic text. That is, whether the Masoretic text which forms the basis of most modern English translations of the Old Testament, or translations which pre-date the masoretic text, such as the Septuagint, Syriac Peshitta, and Samaritan Pentateuch are more accurate.[citation needed]
Mistranslation[edit]
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[10] 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 inconsistencies arising between different English translations of the Hebrew or Greek text. Some Christian interpretations are criticized for reflecting specific doctrinal bias[32] or a variant reading between the Masoretic Hebrew and Septuagint Greek manuscripts often quoted in the New Testament.
Translation of Almah as Virgin[edit]
Matthew 1:22-1:23 reads: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." As early as the 2nd century CE, Jewish critics have argued that Christians were mistaken in their reading of the word almah ("עלמה") in Isaiah 7:14.[33] 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).[32]
Christians claim that the reference to the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 refers to a virgin birth, but critics claim otherwise.
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15)
The Greek text of Matthew 1:23 uses the term "parthenos", which is the usual Greek word for virgin:
"ιδού η παρθένος εν γαστρί έξει και τέξεται υιόν και καλέσουσιν το όνομα αυτού Εμμανουήλ ο έστιν μεθερμηνευόμενος μεθ' ημών ο Θεός". (Matthew 1:23 Textus Receptus)[34]
The (right-to-left) Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 uses the word almah:
יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל. 14Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)[35]
The Jewish translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek that was in use during the 1st century, the Septuagint, uses the word "parthenos" ("virgin") in Isaiah 7:14 rather than the usual Greek word "neanis" for "young woman".[36] 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, but only in light of the Masoretic Canon which was finalized nearly 1000 years after the Septuagint.[37]
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.[38] 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.[39]
(For more information, see the articles on the Virgin birth of Jesus and Isaiah 7:14.)
Prophecy of the Nazarene[edit]
Another example is Nazarene in Matthew 2:23: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." The website for Jews for Judaism claims that "Since a Nazarene is a resident of the city of Nazareth and this city did not exist during the time period of the Jewish Bible, it is impossible to find this quotation in the Hebrew Scriptures. It was fabricated."[32][40] However, one common suggestion is that the New Testament verse is based on a passage relating to Nazirites, either because this was a misunderstanding common at the time, or through deliberate re-reading of the term by the early Christians. Another suggestion is "that Matthew was playing on the similarity of the Hebrew word nezer (translated 'Branch' or 'shoot' in Isaiah 11:1 and Jeremiah 23:5) with the Greek nazoraios, here translated 'Nazarene.'"[41] Christians also suggest that by using an indirect quotation and the plural term prophets, "Matthew was only saying that by living in Nazareth, Jesus was fulfilling the many Old Testament prophecies that He would be despised and rejected."[42] The background for this is illustrated by Philip's initial response in John 1:46 to the idea that Jesus might be the Messiah: "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?"[41]
Miracles[edit]
Further information: Miracle, Faith healing and Exorcism
Philosopher David Hume argued against the plausibility of miracles:[43]
1) A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature;
2) We know these laws through repeated and constant experience;
3) The testimony of those who report miracles contradicts the operation of known scientific laws;
4) Consequently no one can rationally believe in miracles.
Hume's argument against the plausibility of miracles produced by humans is answered by Jesus' own admission of the human impossibility of miracles, which are acts of God that are "impossible for men", but "with God all things are possible". (Matthew 19:26)
The Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church reject Hume's argument against miracles outright with the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas, who postulated that Reason alone was not sufficient to understand God's energies (activities such as miracles) and essence, but faith was.[44]
Miraculous healings through prayers, often involving the "laying on of hands", have been reported. However, reliance on faith healing alone can indirectly contribute to serious harm and even death.[45] Christian apologists including C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig have argued that miracles are reasonable and plausible.[46][47][48]
Ethics[edit]
Main article: Ethics in the Bible
Certain interpretations of some moral decisions in the Bible are considered ethically questionable by many modern groups. Some of the passages most commonly criticized include colonialism, the subjugation of women, religious intolerance, condemnation of homosexuality, and support for the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments.
The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the ethics of Christianity. See Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche#Christianity and morality.
Colonialism[edit]
Main article: Christianity and colonialism
Christianity and colonialism are often closely associated because Catholicism, Russian Orthodoxy and Protestantism were the religions of the European colonial powers[49] and acted in many ways as the "religious arm" of those powers.[50] Initially, Christian missionaries were portrayed as "visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery". However, by the time the colonial era drew to a close in the last half of the twentieth century, missionaries became viewed as “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them.”[51]
Christianity is targeted by critics of colonialism because the tenets of the religion were used to justify the actions of the colonists.[52] For example, Michael Wood asserts that the indigenous peoples were not considered to be human beings and that the colonisers was shaped by "centuries of Ethnocentrism, and Christian monotheism, which espoused one truth, one time and version of reality."[53]
Slavery[edit]
Main article: Christianity and slavery
Early Christianity variously opposed, accepted, or ignored slavery.[54] 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 that the institution of slavery existed.
The earliest surviving Christian teachings about slavery are from Paul the Apostle, who frequently referred to himself as a "Slave of Christ", perhaps implying that he was a slave and Jesus was his master, although it may have just been an expression. Paul did not renounce the institution of slavery. Conversely, he taught that Christian slaves ought to serve their masters wholeheartedly.[Eph. 6:5-8] At the same time, he taught slave owners to treat their slaves fairly. The entire Epistle to 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".[Philemon 16] Tradition describes Pope Pius I (term c. 158-167) and Pope Callixtus I (term c. 217-222) as former slaves.[55]
Since the Middle Ages, the Christian understanding of slavery has been subjected to significant internal conflict and has endured dramatic change. Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century recognised slavery, within specific biblical limitations, as consistent with Christian theology. The key verse used to justify slavery was Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem." which was interpreted to mean that Africans were the descendants of Ham, cursed with "the mark of Ham" to be servants to the descendants of Japheth (Europeans) and Shem (Asians).[54] In early Medieval times, the Church discouraged slavery throughout Europe, largely eliminating it.[56] That changed in 1452, when Pope Nicholas V instituted the hereditary slavery of captured Muslims and pagans, regarding all non-Christians as "enemies of Christ."[57]
Rodney Stark makes the argument in For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,[58] that Christianity helped to end slavery worldwide, as does Lamin Sanneh in Abolitionists Abroad.[59] 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.[60] 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. Earlier, 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.[61]
Many 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.[54] Full adherents to reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[62][63][64] With these exceptions, all Christian faith groups now condemn slavery, and see the practice as incompatible with basic Christian principles.[54][56]
In addition to aiding[dubious – discuss] abolitionism, many Christians made further efforts toward establishing racial equality, contributing to the Civil Rights Movement.[65] The African American Review notes the important role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement.[66] 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.[67]
Christianity and women[edit]
See also: Women in Christianity and Women in the Bible
Joan of Arc led battles in the fight to free France from England. She believed that God had commanded her to do so. Upon capture, she was tried for heresy by an English court and burned at the stake. She is now a saint venerated in the Roman Catholic Church.[68]
Many feminists have accused notions such as a male God, male prophets, and the man-centered stories in the Bible of contributing to a patriarchy.[69] 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.[70] For example, women were told to keep silent in the churches for "it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church".[1 Cor. 14:34-35] Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton said in The Woman's Bible that "the Bible in its teachings degrades women from Genesis to Revelation".[71]
Elizabeth Clark cites early Christian writings by authors such as Tertullian, Augustine, and John Chrysostom as being exemplary of the negative perception of women that has been perpetuated in church tradition.[72] Until the latter part of the 20th 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;[73] Mary Magdalene, disciple of Jesus and the first witness to the resurrection; and Mary and Martha, the sisters who offered him hospitality in Bethany.[74]
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 as the adulteress and repentant prostitute presented in John 8—a connection supposed by tradition but nowhere claimed in the New Testament. 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.[74]
Classicist Evelyn Stagg and New Testament scholar Frank Stagg in their jointly authored book, Woman in the World of Jesus, document very unfavorable attitudes toward women that prevailed in the world into which Jesus came. They assert that there is no recorded instance where Jesus disgraces, belittles, reproaches, or stereotypes a woman. They interpret the recorded treatment and attitude Jesus showed to women as evidence that the Founder of Christianity treated women with great dignity and respect.[75] 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.[76] However, Schalom Ben-Chorin argues that Jesus' 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.[Ex. 20:12] [77] He mistakenly assumes Jesus' response to be an offensive statement, when in all actuality, the term "woman" was used to show respect in the Hebrew cultures. Also, Christ was an adult at the time, thirty years of age. He had the biblical right to refuse a command by his mother, and he did so stating that he was doing his Father's (God's) business.
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.[78]
Christian egalitarians advocate ability-based, rather than gender-based, ministry of Christians of all ages, ethnicities and socio-economic classes.[79] 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".[80]
Complementarians support both equality and beneficial differences between men and women.[81] 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.
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.[82] Thus, the idea of God being "The Father" is with regards to his relationship with what are "his children", Christians.
Most mainline Christians claim that the doctrine of the Trinity implies that God should be called Father and not called Mother, in the same way that Jesus was a man and was not a woman.[83] Jesus tells His followers to address God as Father.[Mt. 6:9-13] He tells his disciples to be merciful as their heavenly Father is merciful.[Lk. 6:36] He says the Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask[Lk. 11:13] and that the Spirit of their Father will speak through them in times of persecution.[Mt. 10:20] On Easter Sunday, he directs Mary Magdalene to tell the other disciples, "I am going to my Father and your Father...."[Jn. 20:17] Mark Brumley points out that behind New Testament language of Divine Adoption and regeneration is the idea that God is our Father because He is the "source" or "origin" of our new life in Christ. He has saved us through Christ and sanctified us in the Spirit. Brumley claims this is clearly more than a metaphor; the analogy with earthly fatherhood is obvious. God is not merely like a father for Christ’s followers; he is really their Father. Among Christians who hold to this idea, there is a distinct sense that Jesus' treatment of women should imply equality in leadership and marital roles every bit as strongly as the definite male gender of Jesus should imply a name of Father for God. Rather than as antifeminist, they characterize alternative naming as unnecessary and unsupported by the words found in the Bible.[83]
In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to revise its "Baptist Faith and Message" (Statement of Faith),[84] 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. In the same document, the Southern Baptist Convention took a strong position of the subordinating view of woman in marriage: "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband. She has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation."[84] (Emphasis added)
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not allow female clergy. The Chaldean Catholic Church on the other hand continues to maintain a large number of deaconesses serving alongside male deacons during mass.[85]
In some evangelical churches, it is forbidden for women to become pastors, deacons or church elders. In support of such prohibitions, the verse 1 Timothy 2:12 is often cited:[86]
“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
Christianity and politics[edit]
Main article: Christianity and politics
See also: Christian left, Christian right and Religion and politics
Some leftists and libertarians, including Christians who disavow the Religious Right, use the term Christian fascism or Christofascism to describe what some see as an emerging neoconservative proto-fascism or Evangelical nationalism and possible theocratic sentiment in the United States.[87]
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 Bush articulates. It is a form of Christianity that is the mirror opposite of what Jesus embodied."[88]
Christianity and violence[edit]
Main article: Christianity and violence
See also: Christian terrorism and Crusades
Many critics of Christianity have cited the violent acts of Christian nations as a reason to denounce the religion. Science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke said that he could not forgive religions for the atrocities and wars over time.[89] 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.[90]
Peace, compassion and forgiveness of wrongs done by others are key elements of Christian teaching.[91] However, Christians have struggled since the days of the Church fathers with the question of when the use of force is justified.[92] Such debates have led to concepts such as just war theory. Throughout history, biblical passages have been used to justify the use of force against heretics,[93] sinners[94] and external enemies.[95] Heitman and Hagan identify the Inquisitions, Crusades, wars of religion and antisemitism as being "among the most notorious examples of Christian violence".[96] To this list, J. Denny Weaver adds, "warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child', justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men". Weaver employs a broader definition of violence that extends the meaning of the word to cover "harm or damage", not just physical violence per se. Thus, under his definition, Christian violence includes "forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism".[97]
Although some Christians have relied on Christian teaching to justify their use of force, other[which?] Christians have opposed the use of force and violence. Some[which?] of the latter have formed sects that have emphasized pacificism as a central tenet of their faith.[citation needed] Christians have also engaged in violence against those that they classify as heretics and non-believers. In Letter to a Christian Nation, critic of religion Sam Harris writes that "...faith inspires violence in at least two ways. First, people often kill other human beings because they believe that the creator of the universe wants them to do it... Second, far greater numbers of people fall into conflict with one another because they define their moral community on the basis of their religious affiliation..."[98]
Christian theologians point to a strong doctrinal and historical imperative within Christianity against violence, particularly Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, which taught nonviolence and love of enemies. Weaver says that Jesus' pacifism was "preserved in the justifiable war doctrine that declares all war as sin even when declaring it occasionally a necessary evil, and in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition of Christian pacifism".[97] Others point out sayings and acts of Jesus that do not fit this description: the absence of any censure of the soldier who asks Jesus to heal his servant, his overturning the tables and chasing the moneychangers from the temple with a rope in his hand, and through his Apostles, baptising a Roman Centurion who is never asked to first give up arms.[99]
Science[edit]
Unbalanced scales.svg
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2013)
See also: Science and the Bible and Relationship between religion and science
During the 19th century an interpretive model of the relationship between religion and science known today as the conflict theory developed, according to which interaction between religion and science almost inevitably leads to hostility and conflict. 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. This thesis was a popular historiographical approach during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but most contemporary historians of science now reject it.[100][101][102]
The notion of a war between science and religion remained common in the historiography of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[103] Most of today's historians of science consider that the conflict thesis has been superseded by subsequent historical research.[104] The framing of the relationship between Christianity and science as being predominantly one of conflict is still prevalent in popular culture.[105]
The astronomer Carl Sagan, mentioned 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 Cosmos: 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."[106] Ted Peters in Encyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in this story, it has been exaggerated and has 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".[107] In 1992, the Catholic Church's seeming vindication of Galileo attracted much comment in the media.
Numerous scientists have criticized Christian fundamentalism and creationism as inherently unscientific and incompatible with modern understanding of evolutionary biology, geology, and cosmology.[108][109]
Medieval scholars sought to understand the geometric and harmonic principles by which God created the universe.[110]
Doctrine[edit]
Incarnation[edit]
Main article: Incarnation (Christianity)
The earliest objections to incarnation come from Celsus and Porphyry.[citation needed] 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?"[111]
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. The logical soundness of this trilemma has been widely questioned.[112]
Hell and damnation[edit]
See also: Problem of Hell and Hell in Christianity
Adam and Eve being driven from Eden due to original sin, portrayed by Gustave Doré.
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.[113] Traditional Christian doctrine dictates that, without faith in Jesus Christ or in the Christian faith in general, one is subject to eternal punishment in Hell.[114]
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[115] when the claimed omnipotent God makes, or allows a person to come into existence, with a nature that desires that which God finds objectionable.[116]
In the Abrahamic religions, Hell has traditionally been regarded as a punishment for wrongdoing 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.[117] The Roman Catholic Church teaches that hell is a place of punishment[118] brought about by a person's self exclusion from communion with God.[119] In some ancient Eastern Orthodox traditions, Hell and Heaven are distinguished not spatially, but by the relation of a person to God's love.
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 humans the awesome responsibility of their eternal destinies.[120] 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. For instance, 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.[121]
Idolatry[edit]
Despite Christians usually alleges different religions to be idolatrous, they have been pointed out by number of notable people to have been engaged in idolatry, the common practices of Christians that have been regarded as idolatry contains the use of images of Jesus, Mary, Saints, etc.[122]
Limbo[edit]
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that baptism is a necessity. In the 5th century, St. Augustine concluded that infants who die without baptism were consigned to hell.[123] 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 of that which they were deprived, and moreover enjoyed perfect natural happiness. 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".[124] In 2007, the 30-member International Theological Commission revisited the concept of limbo.[125][126] However, the commission also said that hopefulness was not the same as certainty about the destiny of such infants.[125] Rather, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1257, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."[127] Hope in the mercy of God is not the same as certainty through the sacraments, but it is not without result, as demonstrated in Jesus' statement to the thief on the cross in Luke 23:42-43.
The concept of limbo is not accepted by the Orthodox Church or by Protestants.[128]
Atonement[edit]
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?"[129] 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.[130] Responding to the criticism that he is "ignorant" of theology, Dawkins asks, "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?"[131] 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."[132] 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."[133] 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.[134]
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".[135][136] 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.
The 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,[137] though as in this and other cases, illustrations are only cautiously intended to describe certain aspects of the atonement.[138]
Second Coming[edit]
Main article: Second Coming
Several verses in the New Testament appear to contain Jesus' predictions that the Second Coming would take place within a century following his death.[139] Jesus appears to promise for his followers the second coming to happen before the generation he is preaching to vanishes. This is seen as an essential failure in the teachings of Christ by many critics such as Bertrand Russell.[140]
However, Preterists argue that Jesus did not mean his second coming[Matt. 16:28] but speaks about demonstrations of his might, formulating this as "coming in his kingdom", especially the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple 70 AD, which he foretold, and by which time not all of his disciples were still living.[141] According to this view Matthew 10:23 should be understood in the same way.[142]
Inconsistency with Old Testament conception of the afterlife[edit]
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.[143] The presumption is that the deceased are inert, lifeless, and engaging in no activity.[143] However, two men, Enoch and Elijah, are taken into the afterlife without ever experiencing death.
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."[144] Obayashi alludes that the Israelites were satisfied with such a shadowy realm of afterlife because they were more deeply concerned with survival.[144]
Before Christianity began in the 1st century, the belief in an afterlife was already prevalent in Jewish thinking[145] among the Pharisees[146][147] and Essenes.[148] 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.
Criticism of Christians[edit]
See also: Anti-Christian sentiment
Negative attitudes in the United States[edit]
David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Institute, and Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Project published a study of attitudes of 16- to 29-year-old Americans towards Christianity. They found that about 38% of all those who were not regular churchgoers had negative impressions of Christianity, and especially evangelical Christianity, associating it with conservative political activism, hypocrisy, anti-homosexuality, authoritarianism, and judgmentalism.[149] About 17% had "very bad" perceptions of Christianity.[150][151]
Negative attitudes in Nazi Germany[edit]
The Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, among the most aggressive anti-Church Nazis, wrote that there was "an insoluble opposition between the Christian and a heroic-German world view".[152]
Nazi ideology was hostile to Christianity and clashed with Christian beliefs in many respects.[153] Nazism saw Christian ideals of meekness and conscience as obstacles to the violent instincts required to defeat other races.[153] The Nazis opposed Catholic teachings against racism, euthanasia and eugenics.
Aggressive anti-Church radicals like Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann saw the conflict with the Churches as a priority concern, and anti-church and anti-clerical sentiments were strong among grassroots party activists.[152] According to biographer Alan Bullock, Hitler, who had been raised Catholic, retained some regard for the organisational power of Catholicism - but had utter contempt for its central teachings, which he said, if taken to their conclusion, "would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.":[154]
The Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was anti-clerical and hostile to Christianity.[152][154]
In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.
— Extract from Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock
Joseph Goebbels, the Minister for Propaganda, was among the most aggressive anti-Church Nazi radicals. In 1928, soon after his election to the Reichstag, Goebbels wrote in his diary that National Socialism was a "religion" that needed a genius to uproot "outmoded religious practices" and put new ones in their place: "One day soon National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My Party is my church, and I believe I serve the Lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of slavery. That is my gospel."[155] Goebbels led the Nazi persecution of the German Catholic clergy and, as the war progressed, on the "Church Question", he wrote "after the war it has to be generally solved... There is, namely, an insoluble opposition between the Christian and a heroic-German world view".[152]
Hitler's chosen deputy and private secretary, Martin Bormann, was a rigid guardian of National Socialist orthodoxy and saw Christianity and Nazism as "incompatible" (mainly because of its Jewish origins),[153][156] as did the official Nazi philosopher, Alfred Rosenberg. In his "Myth of the Twentieth Century" (1930), Rosenberg wrote that the main enemies of the Germans were the "Russian Tartars" and "Semites" - with "Semites" including Christians, especially the Catholic Church.[157]
According to Bullock, Hitler considered the Protestant clergy to be "insignificant" and "submissive" and lacking in a religion to be taken seriously.[158] Kershaw wrote that the subjugation of the Protestant churches proved more difficult than Hitler had envisaged however. With 28 separate regional churches, his bid to create a unified Reich Church through Gleichschaltung ultimately failed, and Hitler became disinterested in supporting the so-called "German Christians" Nazi aligned movement. Hitler initially lent support to Ludwig Muller, a Nazi and former naval chaplain, to serve as Reich Bishop, but his heretical views against St Paul and the Semitic origins of Christ and the Bible (see Positive Christianity) quickly alienated sections of the Protestant church. Pastor Martin Neimoller responded with the Pastors Emergency League which re-affirmed the Bible. The movement grew into the Confessing Church, from which some clergymen opposed the Nazi regime.[159] Neimoller was arrested by the Gestapo in 1937, and sent to the Concentration Camps.[160] The Confessing Church seminary was prohibited that same year.[161]
Hypocrisy[edit]
Gaudium et spes claims that the example of Christians may be a contributory factor to atheism, writing, "…believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion."[162]
Secular and religious critics have accused many Christians of being hypocritical.[163] Tom Whiteman, a Philadelphia psychologist found that the primary reasons for Christian divorce include adultery, abuse (including substance, physical and verbal abuse), and abandonment whereas the number one reason cited for divorce in the general population was incompatibility.[164]
Bigotry[edit]
Protestant Christian dominated KKK hinting at violence toward Jews and Catholics. Illustration by Rev. Branford Clarke from Heroes of the Fiery Cross 1928 by Bishop Alma White published by the Pillar of Fire Church in Zarephath, NJ.
Conservative Christians are often accused of being intolerant by secular humanists and liberal Christians, claiming that they oppose science that seems to contradict scripture (Creationism, use of birth control, research into embryonic stem cells, etc.), liberal democracy (separation of church and state), and progressive social policies (rights of people of other races and religions, of women, and of people with different sexual orientations).[165][166][167][168]
Materialism[edit]
Instead of understanding and following the teachings of Jesus, the Christians argued and quarreled about the nature of Jesus’s divinity and about the Trinity. They called each other heretics and persecuted each other and cut each other’s heads off. There was a great and violent controversy at one time among different Christian sects over a certain diphthong. One party said that the word Homo-ousion should be used in a prayer; the other wanted Homoi-ousion-this difference had reference to the divinity of Jesus. Over this diphthong fierce war was raged and large numbers of people were slaughtered.
— Jawaharlal Nehru[169][170]
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time.
— Mahatma Gandhi[171]
Sectarianism[edit]
Main articles: Sectarianism and Christian denomination
Some have argued that Christianity is undermined by the inability of Christians to agree on matters of faith and church governance, and the tendency for the content of their faith to be determined by regional or political factors. Schopenhauer sarcastically suggested:
To the South German ecclesiastic the truth of the Catholic dogma is quite obvious, to the North German, the Protestant. If then, these convictions are based on objective reasons, the reasons must be climatic, and thrive, like plants, some only here, some only there. The convictions of those who are thus locally convinced are taken on trust and believed by the masses everywhere.[172]
Christians respond that Ecumenism has helped bring together such communities, where in the past mistranslations of Christological Greek terms may have resulted in seemingly different views. Non-denominational Christianity represents another approach towards reducing the divisions within Christianity, although many Christian groups claiming to be non-denominational wind up with similar problems.
Persecution by Christians[edit]
Main articles: Christian debate on persecution and toleration and Christianity and violence
Individuals and groups throughout history have been persecuted by certain Christians (and Christian groups) based upon sex, sexual orientation, race, and religion (even within the bounds of Christianity itself). Many of the persecutors attempted to justify their actions with particular scriptural interpretations. During Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, important Christian theologians advocated religious persecution to varying degrees.[citation needed] However, Early modern Europe witnessed a turning point in the Christian debate on persecution and toleration. Nowadays all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration, and "look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension".[173]
Early Christianity was a minority religion in the Roman Empire and the early Christians were themselves persecuted during that time. After Constantine I converted to Christianity, it became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. Already under the reign of Constantine I, Christian heretics had been persecuted; beginning in the late 4th century AD also the ancient pagan religions were actively suppressed. In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.[174]
After the decline of the Roman Empire, the further Christianization of Europe was to a large extent peaceful.[175] However, encounters between Christians and Pagans were sometimes confrontational, and some Christian kings (Charlemagne, Olaf I of Norway) were known for their violence against pagans. In the late Middle Ages, the appearance of the Cathars and Bogomils in Europe laid the stage for the later witch-hunts. These (probably gnostic-influenced) sects were seen as heretics by the Catholic Church, and the Inquisition was established to counter them.
After the Protestant Reformation, the devastation caused by the partly religiously motivated wars (Thirty Years' War, English Civil War, French Wars of Religion) in Europe in the 17th century gave rise to the ideas of Religious toleration, Freedom of religion and Religious pluralism.
Response of apologists[edit]
Christians will sometimes point out that in their points of view, the wrongdoings of other Christians are not the fault of their religious scriptures but of those who have wrongly interpreted it. They posit that the mistakes of Christians do not refute the validity of their teachings, but merely proves their weakness and sinful nature, of which they then turn to Christ. Thus, according to them, the "Word of God" can still be true and valid without it having been accurately followed.[citation needed] According to Ron Sider, an Evangelical theologian, "The tragedy is that poll after poll by Gallup and Barna show that evangelicals live just like the world. Contrast that with what the New Testament says about what happens when people come to living faith in Christ. There's supposed to be radical transformation in the power of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 5:17, 1 Cor 10:13). The disconnect between our biblical beliefs and our practice is just, I think, heart-rending."[176]
Similar arguments are held by Roman Catholics against critics of the Catholic Church, or by other Christians defending their respective Churches.[citation needed] of the Church's structure. Roman Catholics will argue that Popes who were corrupt in the Middle Ages is not the fault of the position of the Papacy or of the fact that there are obedient Priests lower in the hierarchy, but the fault of the individual people who act as "God's representative on Earth". Such examples can be seen in Dante's Divine Comedy, where Roman Catholic Clergy who had practiced simony find themselves in the lower circles of hell.
Criticism by other religions[edit]
Hinduism[edit]
Statue of Raja Ram Mohan Roy at College Green, Bristol, UK.
Ram Mohan Roy criticized Christian doctrines, and asserted that how "unreasonable" and "self-contradictory" they are.[177] He further adds that people, even from India were embracing Christianity due to the economic hardship and weakness, just like European Jews were pressured to embrace Christianity, by both encouragement and force.[178]
Vivekananda regarded Christianity as "..collection of little bits of Indian thought. Ours is the religion of which Buddhism with all its greatness is a rebel child, and of which Christianity is a very patchy imitation."[179]
Philosopher Dayanand Saraswati, regarded Christianity as "barbarous religion, and a 'false religion' religion believed only by fools and by the people in a state of barbarism,"[180] he included that Bible contains many stories and precepts that are immoral, praising cruelty, deceit and encouraging sin.[181]
Highly acclaimed Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, writes :-
Unfortunately Christian religion inherited the Semitic creed of the ‘jealous God’ in the view of Christ as ‘the only begotten son of God’ so could not brook any rival near the throne. When Europe accepted the Christian religion, in spite of its own broad humanism, it accepted the fierce intolerance which is the natural result of belief in 'the truth once for all delivered to the saints.'[182]
Judaism[edit]
See also: Talmud
Moshe Halbertal in 2009.
Shlomo ben Aderet criticized Christianity, adding that it has lesser form of monotheism, and lacks a unified deity compared to Judaism.[183]
David Flusser viewed Christianity as "Cheaper Judaism" and highly anti-judaism, he also highlighted the "failure of christianity to convert the Jewish people to the new message" as "precisely the reason for the strong anti-jewish trend in christianity."[184]
Professor Moshe Halbertal, regards Christianity to be "idolatrous religion," and he further adds that the idolatry by Christians "opened the door to the easing of many other restrictive prohibitions."[185]
Stephen Samuel Wise in his own words was critical towards Christian community, for their failure to rescue Jews, from Europe, during Nazi rule. He wrote that:-
A Christian world that will permit millions of Jews to be slain without moving heaven by prayer and earth in every human way to save its Jews has lost its capacity for moral and spiritual survival.[186]
Islam[edit]
Islam's prophet Muhammad said that Christians had to follow one God, but they have made multiple, he said:-
They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God.[187]
Muslim scholars have criticized Christianity, usually for its Trinity concept. They argue that this doctrine is an invention, distortion of the idea about God, and presentation of the idea that there are three gods.[188]
Origins[edit]
See also: Historicity of Jesus, Christ myth theory and Christianity and Paganism
Some have argued that Christianity is not founded on a historical Jesus, but rather on a mythical creation.[189] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of Hellenistic mystery cults that acknowledged the non-historic nature of their deity using it instead as a teaching device.[190] Author Brian Branston has argued that Christianity adopted many mythological tales and traditions into its views of Jesus. According to Branston these traditions, largely from Greco-Roman religions, have parallels to the story of Jesus.[191] However, the position that Jesus was not a historical figure is essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship.[192]
Scholars and historians such as James H. Charlesworth caution against using parallels with life-death-rebirth gods in the widespread mystery religions prevalent in the Hellenistic culture to conclude that Jesus is a purely legendary figure. Charlesworth argues that "it would be foolish to continue to foster the illusion that the Gospels are merely fictional stories like the legends of Hercules and Asclepius. The theologies in the New Testament are grounded on interpretations of real historical events…"[193]
See also[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Criticism of Christianity
Anti-Catholicism
Anti-Christian sentiment
Anti-clericalism
Anti-Protestantism
Antireligion
Antitheism
Biblical cosmology
Biblical literalism
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Christianity and multiculturalism
Criticism of Jesus
Christ myth theory
Internal consistency of the Bible
Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Browning, W.R.F. "Biblical criticism." A Dictionary of the Bible. 1997 Encyclopedia.com. 8 Apr. 2010
2.^ Jump up to: a b Robinson, B.A. Biblical Criticism, including Form Criticism, Tradition Criticism, Higher Criticism, etc. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2008. Web: 8 Apr 2010.
3.^ Jump up to: a b Mather, G.A. & L.A. Nichols, Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult, Zondervan (1993) (quoted in Robinson, Biblical Criticism
4.Jump up ^ See for example the list of alleged contradictions from The Skeptic's Annotated Bible and Robert G. Ingersoll's article Inspiration Of Bible.
5.Jump up ^ M.W.J. Phelan. The Inspiration of the Pentateuch, Two-edged Sword Publications (March 9, 2005) ISBN 978-0-9547205-6-8
6.Jump up ^ Ronald D. Witherup, Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know, Liturgical Press (2001), page 26.
7.Jump up ^ France, R.T., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England (1985), pg. 17.
8.Jump up ^ Britannica Encyclopedia, Jesus Christ, p.17
9.^ Jump up to: a b c Lindsell, Harold. "The Battle for the Bible", Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA (1976), pg. 38.
10.^ Jump up to: a b c Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
11.Jump up ^ As in 2 Timothy 3:16, discussed by Thompson, Mark (2006). A Clear and Present Word. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove: Apollos. p. 92. ISBN 1-84474-140-0.
12.Jump up ^ Norman L. Geisler, William E. Nix (2012), From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible, Moody Publishers, p. PT45, ISBN 978-0802483928 "faith and practice"
13.Jump up ^ See notably Grudem, representative of recent scholarship with this emphasis (Grudem, Wayne (1994). Systematic Theology. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press. pp. 90–105. ISBN 978-0-85110-652-6.).
14.Jump up ^ Till, Farrell (1991). "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled". Internet Infidels. Retrieved 2007-01-16.
15.Jump up ^ W. H. Bellinger; William Reuben Farmer, eds. (1998). Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Trinity Press. ISBN 9781563382307. Retrieved 2 August 2013. "Did Jesus of Nazareth live and die without the teaching about the righteous Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 having exerted any significant influence on his ministry? Is it probable that this text exerted no significant influence upon Jesus' understanding of the plan of God to save the nations that the prophet Isaiah sets forth?" —Two questions addressed in a conference on "Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins" at Baylor University in the fall of 1995, the principal papers of which are available in "Jesus and the Suffering Servant."
16.Jump up ^ Peter W. Stoner, Science Speaks, Moody Pr, 1958, ISBN 0-8024-7630-9
17.Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L. (2002). did not accomplish%22 Understanding the Bible (6 ed.). McGraw-Hill College. pp. 376–377. ISBN 9780767429160. Retrieved 2 August 2013. (Further snippets of quote: B C D)
18.^ Jump up to: a b Biography of Isaac ben Abraham of Troki
19.Jump up ^ Chizzuk Emunah, TorahLab Store
20.Jump up ^ Pascal, Blaise (1958). Pensees. Translator W. F. Trotter. chapter x, xii, xiii.
21.Jump up ^ McDowell, Josh (1999). "chapter 8". The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Thomas Nelson. ISBN 9781850785521.
22.Jump up ^ See, for example, the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15
23.Jump up ^ For instance "What's wrong with being gay?" at ChristianAnswers.net argues that the Old Testament prohibitions against homosexuality are renewed in the New Testament
24.Jump up ^ For example, Theonomy: What it is; What it is not
25.Jump up ^ Bruce Metzger, cited in The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel
26.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins. p. 91. ISBN 9780060738174. Retrieved 2 August 2013.
27.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. New York: Oxford U. Press, 1993
28.Jump up ^ Wallace, Daniel B. "The Gospel According to Bart: A Review Article of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 2006 (also available at Bible.org) Craig L. Blomberg, "Review of Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why," Denver Seminary, February 2006
Howe, Thomas (2006). "A Response To Bart D_ Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus". International Society of Christian Apologetics. p. PDF download. Retrieved 31 July 2013.
29.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2006). Whose Word Is It?. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 0-8264-9129-4. p. 166
30.Jump up ^ Bruce Metzger "A Textual Commentary on the New Testament", Second Edition, 1994, German Bible Society
31.^ Jump up to: a b K. Aland and B. Aland, "The Text Of The New Testament: An Introduction To The Critical Editions & To The Theory & Practice Of Modern Text Criticism", 1995, op. cit., p. 29-30.
32.^ Jump up to: a b c "English Handbook Page 34 999KB" (PDF).
33.Jump up ^ Dialogue of Trypho Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, LXIII
34.Jump up ^ Matthew 1:23 compare multiple versions and languages
35.Jump up ^ Interlinear Hebrew in English order
36.Jump up ^ The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
37.Jump up ^ Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article Virgin Birth of Christ
38.Jump up ^ Charles D. Isbell, Biblical Archaeological Review, June 1977, "Does the Gospel of Matthew Proclaim Mary’s Virginity?"
39.Jump up ^ Martin Luther, "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew," in Luther's Works, vol. 45: The Christian in Society II, ed. H. T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1962).
40.Jump up ^ See also "Given the New Testament a Chance?" from the Messiah Truth website
41.^ Jump up to: a b David Sper, Managing Editor, "Questions Skeptics Ask About Messianic Prophecies," RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids, MI, 1997
42.Jump up ^ See Psalms 22:6-8,22:13; 69:8, 69:20-21; Isaiah 11:1, 49:7, 53:2-3,53:8; Daniel 9:26
43.Jump up ^ Hume, David (2000). "Chapter 10. Of Religion". In Tom L. Beauchamp. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: A Critical Edition. Volume 3 of The Clarendon edition of the works of David Hume (Oxford University Press). p. 86. ISBN 9780198250609. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
44.Jump up ^ *Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas, Vol. 1 (ISBN 1-878997-67-X) Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas, Vol. 2 (ISBN 187899767X)
45.Jump up ^ Bruce L. Flamm, MD (2004). "Inherent Dangers of Faith-Healing Studies". The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine.
46.Jump up ^ "Are Miracles Logically Impossible?". Come Reason Ministries, Convincing Christianity. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
47.Jump up ^ ""Miracles are not possible," some claim. Is this true?". ChristianAnswers.net. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
48.Jump up ^ Paul K. Hoffman. "A Jurisprudential Analysis Of Hume’s "in Principal" Argument Against Miracles" (PDF). Christian Apologetics Journal, Volume 2, No. 1, Spring, 1999; Copyright ©1999 by Southern Evangelical Seminary. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 26, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
49.Jump up ^ Melvin E. Page, Penny M. Sonnenburg (2003). Colonialism: an international, social, cultural, and political encyclopedia, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 496. "Of all religions, Christianity has been most associated with colonialism because several of its forms (Catholicism and Protestantism) were the religions of the European powers engaged in colonial enterprise on a global scale."
50.Jump up ^ Bevans, Steven. "Christian Complicity in Colonialism/ Globalism" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-11-17. "The modern missionary era was in many ways the ‘religious arm’ of colonialism, whether Portuguese and Spanish colonialism in the sixteenth Century, or British, French, German, Belgian or American colonialism in the nineteenth. This was not all bad — oftentimes missionaries were heroic defenders of the rights of indigenous peoples"
51.Jump up ^ Andrews, Edward (2010). "Christian Missions and Colonial Empires Reconsidered: A Black Evangelist in West Africa, 1766–1816". Journal of Church & State 51 (4): 663–691. doi:10.1093/jcs/csp090. "Historians have traditionally looked at Christian missionaries in one of two ways. The first church historians to catalogue missionary history provided hagiographic descriptions of their trials, successes, and sometimes even martyrdom. Missionaries were thus visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery. However, by the middle of the twentieth century, an era marked by civil rights movements, anti-colonialism, and growing secularization, missionaries were viewed quite differently. Instead of godly martyrs, historians now described missionaries as arrogant and rapacious imperialists. Christianity became not a saving grace but a monolithic and aggressive force that missionaries imposed upon defiant natives. Indeed, missionaries were now understood as important agents in the ever-expanding nation-state, or “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them."
52.Jump up ^ Meador, Jake. "Cosmetic Christianity and the Problem of Colonialism – Responding to Brian McLaren". Retrieved 17 November 2010. "According to Jake Meador, "some Christians have tried to make sense of post-colonial Christianity by renouncing practically everything about the Christianity of the colonizers. They reason that if the colonialists’ understanding of Christianity could be used to justify rape, murder, theft, and empire then their understanding of Christianity is completely wrong."
53.Jump up ^ Conquistadors, Michael Wood, p. 20, BBC Publications, 2000
54.^ Jump up to: a b c d Robinson, B. A. (2006). "Christianity and slavery". Retrieved 2007-01-03.
55.Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia Slavery and Christianity
56.^ Jump up to: a b Ostling, Richard N. (2005-09-17). "Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible?". Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News (Associated Press). Retrieved 28 October 2014.
57.Jump up ^ Jack D. Forbes (1993), Africans and Native Americans: The Language of Race and the Evolution of Red-Black Peoples, University of Illinois Press, p. 27, ISBN 978-0252063213
58.Jump up ^ Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery ISBN 978-0-691-11436-1 (2003)
59.Jump up ^ Lamin Sanneh, Abolitionists Abroad: American Blacks and the Making of Modern West Africa, Harvard University Press ISBN 978-0-674-00718-5 (2001)
60.Jump up ^ Ostling, Richard N. (2005-09-17). "Human slavery: why was it accepted in the Bible?". Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
61.Jump up ^ "Abolitionist Movement". MSN Encyclopedia Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
62.Jump up ^ Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books.
63.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
64.Jump up ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy", Chalcedon Blog, 6 September 2007.
65.Jump up ^ "Civil Rights Movement in the United States". MSN Encyclopedia Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
66.Jump up ^ "Religious Revivalism in the Civil Rights Movement". African American Review. Winter 2002. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
67.Jump up ^ "Martin Luther King: The Nobel Peace Prize 1964". The Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2006-01-03.
68.Jump up ^ Thurston, Herbert. St. Joan of Arc. 1910. Catholic Encyclopedia
69.Jump up ^ Feminist philosophy of religion
70.Jump up ^ "The Status Of Women In The Old Testament".
71.Jump up ^ The Woman's Bible
72.Jump up ^ Clark, Elizabeth. Women in the Early Church. Liturgical Press, 1984. ISBN 0-8146-5332-4
73.Jump up ^ Jesus' Family Tree
74.^ Jump up to: a b "King, Karen L. "Women in Ancient Christianity: the New Discoveries." Karen L. King is Professor of New Testament Studies and the History of Ancient Christianity at Harvard University in the Divinity School.
75.Jump up ^ Stagg, Evelyn and Frank. Woman in the World of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978. ISBN 0-664-24195-6
76.Jump up ^ Bilezikian, Gilbert. Beyond Sex Roles (2nd ed.) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1989, ISBN 978-0-8010-0885-6. pp. 82–104
77.Jump up ^ Schalom Ben-Chorin.Brother Jesus: the Nazarene through Jewish eyes. U of Georgia Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-8203-2256-8, p.66
78.Jump up ^ See "About the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus".
79.Jump up ^ Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
80.Jump up ^ Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (eds.). Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. IVP 2004. p. 17.
81.Jump up ^ Grudem, Wayne A. "Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), 47/2 (June 2004) 299–346
82.Jump up ^ Eck, Diana L. Encountering God: A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras. (2003) p. 98
83.^ Jump up to: a b Brumley, Mark. "Why God is Father and not Mother". The Catholic Faith Magazine. July/August 1999. Accessed 25 Feb 2013
84.^ Jump up to: a b "Baptist Faith and Message"
85.Jump up ^ (non-English) - The second image shows deaconnesses, on August 15th, for the prayers on the day of the Assumption of Mary
86.Jump up ^ The 9 Most Important Issues Facing the Evangelical Church
87.Jump up ^ See, for example, Everybody's Talkin' About Christian Fascism by Gary Leupp.
88.Jump up ^ George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism
89.Jump up ^ Clarke, Arthur C. & Watts, Alan (January), “At the Interface: Technology and Mysticism”, Playboy (Chicago, Ill.: HMH Publishing) 19 (1): 94, ISSN 0032-1478, OCLC 3534353
90.Jump up ^ Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion?, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2007, ISBN 978-0-281-05927-0
91.Jump up ^ Luke 6
92.Jump up ^ Peoples, Dr., Glenn Andrew. "Whittling down the pacifist narrative: Did early Christians serve in the army?". www.rightreason.org. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
93.Jump up ^ 1Kings 18:17-46
94.Jump up ^ Deuteronomy 17:5
95.Jump up ^ Psalm 18:37
96.Jump up ^ International encyclopedia of violence research, Volume 2. Springer. 2003.
97.^ Jump up to: a b J. Denny Weaver (2001). "Violence in Christian Theology". Cross Currents. Retrieved 28 October 2014. ""[3rd paragraph] I am using broad definitions of the terms "violence" and "nonviolence." "Violence" means harm or damage, which obviously includes the direct violence of killing – in war, capital punishment, murder – but also covers the range of forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism. "Nonviolence" also covers a spectrum of attitudes and actions, from the classic Mennonite idea of passive nonresistance through active nonviolence and nonviolent resistance that would include various kinds of social action, confrontations and posing of alternatives that do not do bodily harm or injury."
98.Jump up ^ Sam Harris (2006). Letter to a Christian Nation. Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 80–81. ISBN 978-0-307-26577-7.
99.Jump up ^ War, A Catholic Dictionary: Containing some Account of the Doctrine, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies, Councils, and Religious Orders of the Catholic Church, W. E Addis, T. Arnold, Revised T. B Scannell and P. E Hallett, 15th Edition, Virtue & Co, 1953, Nihil Obstat: Reginaldus Philips, Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, 2 October 1950, "In the Name of God : Violence and Destruction in the World's Religions", M. Jordan, 2006, p. 40[unreliable source?]
100.Jump up ^ Quotation: "The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science." (p. 7), from the essay by Colin A. Russell "The Conflict Thesis" in Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0".
101.Jump up ^ Quotation: "In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the "warfare between science and religion" and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science." (p. 195) Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press Chicago, Ill.
102.Jump up ^ Quotation: "In its traditional forms, the [conflict] thesis has been largely discredited." (p. 42) Brooke, J.H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
103.Jump up ^ Quotation from Ferngren's introduction at "Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.": "…while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind." (p. x)
104.Jump up ^ Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
105.Jump up ^ From Ferngren's introduction:
"…while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind. (p. x)-Gary Ferngren, (2002); Introduction, p. ix)
106.Jump up ^ Sagan, Carl. Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, Episode 3: "The Harmony of the Worlds"
107.Jump up ^ quoted in Ted Peters, Science and Religion, Encyclopedia of Religion, p.8182
108.Jump up ^ Petto, Andrew J.; Godfrey, Laurie R. (2007). Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0393050904.
109.Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (1992). Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History. New York: Norton. pp. 432–447. ISBN 039330857X.
110.Jump up ^ The compass in this 13th-century manuscript is a symbol of God's act of Creation.
* Thomas Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, (Washington, DC: Regenery, 2005), ISBN 0-89526-038-7
111.Jump up ^ Howard W. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers, Indiana University Press, 2003, p. 12
112.Jump up ^ William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway Books (1994) pages 38-39.
113.Jump up ^ "Let no cultured person draw near, none wise and none sensible, for all that kind of thing we count evil; but if any man is ignorant, if any man is wanting in sense and culture, if anybody is a fool, let him come boldly [to become a Christian]. Celsus, AD178
114.Jump up ^ "Since we all inherit Adam's sin, we all deserve eternal damnation. All who die unbaptized, even infants, will go to hell and suffer unending torment. We have no reason to complain of this, since we are all wicked. (In the Confessions, the Saint enumerates the crimes of which he was guilty in the cradle.) But by God's free grace certain people, among those who have been baptized, are chosen to go to heaven; these are the elect. They do not go to heaven because they are good; we are all totally depraved, except insofar as God's grace, which is only bestowed on the elect, enables us to be otherwise. No reason can be given why some are saved and the rest damned; this is due to God's unmotivated choice. Damnation proves God's justice; salvation His mercy. Both equally display His goodness." A history of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, Simon & Schuster, 1945
115.Jump up ^ Bible Teaching and Religious Practice essay: "Europe and Elsewhere," Mark Twain, 1923)
116.Jump up ^ Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27
117.Jump up ^ What do Orthodox Christians teach about death and when we die?
118.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1035, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, ISBN 0-89243-565-8,1994-the revised version issued 1997 has no changes in this section
119.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, ISBN 0-89243-565-8,1994
120.Jump up ^ Richard Beck. "Christ and Horrors, Part 3: Horror Defeat, Universalism, and God's Reputation". Experimental Theology. March 19, 2007.
121.Jump up ^ Jonathan Kvanvig, The Problem of Hell, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-508487-0, 1993
122.Jump up ^ "The Works of Thomas Manton", by Thomas Manton, p. 99
123.Jump up ^ Cultural Anxieties over the Child in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries by William F. MacLehose
124.Jump up ^ Canon Law 1983
125.^ Jump up to: a b CNS STORY: Vatican commission: Limbo reflects 'restrictive view of salvation'
126.Jump up ^ n:Vatican abolishes Limbo
127.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday. 1994. p. 845. ISBN 0-385-47967-0.
128.Jump up ^ Limbo: Recent statements by the Catholic church; Protestant views on Limbo at Religioustolerance.org
129.Jump up ^ Root of All Evil? (2006) (TV)-Memorable quotes
130.Jump up ^ McGrath, Alister (2004). Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing. p. 81. ISBN 1-4051-2538-1.
131.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (September 17, 2007). "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?". RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved 2007-11-14.
132.Jump up ^ Marianna Krejci-Papa, 2005. "Taking On Dawkins' God:An interview with Alister McGrath." Science & Theology News, 2005–04–25.
133.Jump up ^ Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great About Christianity, Regnery Publishing, ISBN 1-59698-517-8 (2007)
134.Jump up ^ Andrew Wilson, Deluded by Dawkins?, Kingsway Publications, ISBN 978-1-84291-355-0 (2007)
135.Jump up ^ A Biographical Appreciation of Robert Green Ingersoll: Chapter 11
136.Jump up ^ Brandt, Eric T., and Timothy Larsen (2011). "The Old Atheism Revisited: Robert G. Ingersoll and the Bible". Journal of the Historical Society 11 (2): 211–238. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5923.2011.00330.x.
137.Jump up ^ More Than A Carpenter, Tyndale House, Wheaton, Illinois, 1977, ISBN 978-0-8423-4552-1
138.Jump up ^ Jeffery, Steve; Ovey, Michael; Sach, Andrew (2007). Pierced for our transgressions. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press. ch. 13. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6.
139.Jump up ^ Most notably, Matthew 10:22-23, 16:27-28, 23:36, 24:29-34, 26:62-64; Mark 9:1, 14:24-30, 14:60-62; and Luke 9:27
140.Jump up ^ In his famous essay Why I Am Not a Christian
141.Jump up ^ Dr. Knox Chamblin, Professor of New Testament Emeritus, Columbia Theological Seminary: Commentary on Matthew 16:21-28 - see last 4 paragraphs
142.Jump up ^ Theodor Zahn, F.F. Bruce, J. Barton Payne, etc. hold this opinion - What is the meaning of Matthew 10:23?
143.^ Jump up to: a b From Witchcraft to Justice: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament, George E. Mendenhall.
144.^ Jump up to: a b Hiroshi Obayashi, Death and Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions. See Introduction.
145.Jump up ^ Jewish eschatology#Olam Haba - the afterlife and the world to come Jewish eschatology: The afterlife and olam haba
146.Jump up ^ Acts 23:6-8
147.Jump up ^ Pharisees#Pharisaic principles and values Pharisees: Pharisaic Principles and Values
148.Jump up ^ Essenes#Rules, customs, theology and beliefs Essenes: Rules, customs, theology and beliefs
149.Jump up ^ About 91% of young outsiders felt Christians were anti-homosexual, 87% felt Christians were judgemental and 85% thought Christians were hypocritical.
150.Jump up ^ unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity… and Why It Matters, David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, Baker Books, October 1, 2007, ISBN 0-8010-1300-3
151.Jump up ^ Who Do People Say We Are? It doesn't hurt to listen to what non-Christians think of us., A Christianity Today editorial, Christianity Today, December 12, 2007
152.^ Jump up to: a b c d Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p.381-382
153.^ Jump up to: a b c Encyclopedia Britannica Online: Fascism - Identification with Christianity; 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2013
154.^ Jump up to: a b Alan Bullock; Hitler: A Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p219
155.Jump up ^ American Experience . The Man Behind Hitler . Transcript | PBS
156.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Martin Bormann; web 25 April 2013
157.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Alfred Rosenberg; web 25 April 2013.
158.Jump up ^ Alan Bullock; Hitler: A Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p219"
159.Jump up ^ Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p.295-297
160.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Martin Niemöller; web 24 April 2013
161.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia Britannica Online - Dietrich Bonhoeffer; web 25 April 2013
162.Jump up ^ Gaudium et spes, 19
163.Jump up ^ The Evangelical Scandal – Christianity Today
164.Jump up ^ Marriage 103: The Raw Reality of Divorce and its Terrible Results
165.Jump up ^ Chip Berlet, "Following the Threads," in Ansell, Amy E. Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics, pp. 24, Westview Press, 1998, ISBN 0-8133-3147-1
166.Jump up ^ "MPs turn attack back on Cardinal Pell". Sydney Morning Herald. 2007-06-06.
167.Jump up ^ "Pope warns Bush on stem cells". BBC News. 2001-07-23.
168.Jump up ^ Andrew Dickson, White (1898). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. p. X. Theological Opposition to Inoculation, Vaccination, and the Use of Anaesthetics.
169.Jump up ^ In his book "Glimpses of world history", p. 86-87
170.Jump up ^ "Secularism and Hindutva, a Discursive Study", by A. A. Parvathy, p.42
171.Jump up ^ As quoted by William Rees-Mogg 4 April 2005 edition of The Times. Gandhi here makes reference to a statement of Jesus: “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:13)
172.Jump up ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur; trans. T. Bailey Saunders. "Religion: A Dialogue". The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer.
173.Jump up ^ see e.g.: John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration on Protestant England 1558-1689, 2000, p. 206.
174.Jump up ^ see e.g.: John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration on Protestant England 1558-1689, 2000, p.22
175.Jump up ^ *Lutz E. von Padberg (1998), Die Christianisierung Europas im Mitterlalter, Reclam (German), p. 183
176.Jump up ^ The Evangelical Scandal
177.Jump up ^ "Raja Rammohun Roy: Encounter with Islam and Christianity and the Articulation of Hindu Self-Consciousness. Page 166, by Abidullah Al-Ansari Ghazi, year = 2010
178.Jump up ^ "Raja Rammohun Roy: Encounter with Islam and Christianity and the Articulation of Hindu Self-Consciousness. Page 169, by Abidullah Al-Ansari Ghazi, year = 2010
179.Jump up ^ "Neo-Hindu Views of Christianity", p. 96, by Arvind Sharma, year = 1988
180.Jump up ^ "Gandhi on Pluralism and Communalism", by P. L. John Panicker, p.39, year = 2006
181.Jump up ^ "Dayānanda Sarasvatī, his life and ideas", p. 267, by J. T. F. Jordens
182.Jump up ^ The Philosophy of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, by Paul Arthur Schilpp, page = 641
183.Jump up ^ "Judaism and Other Religions", p. 88, publisher = Palgrave Macmillan
184.Jump up ^ Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus, by Miriam S. Taylor, p. 41
185.Jump up ^ "Idolatry", by Moshe Halbertal, p. 212
186.Jump up ^ Wise Criticizes Christian World for Failure to Rescue Jews in Nazi Europe 19 February 1943
187.Jump up ^ "Global Civilization: A Buddhist-Islamic Dialogue", by Daisaku Ikeda, Majid Tehranian, p. 36
188.Jump up ^ Christianity: An Introduction, p. 125, by Alister E. McGrath
189.Jump up ^ Examples of authors who argue the Jesus myth theory: Thomas L. Thompson The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (Jonathan Cape, Publisher, 2006); Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 36–72; John Mackinnon Robertson
190.Jump up ^ Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter (1999) The Jesus Mysteries. London: Thorsons (Harper Collins)
191.Jump up ^ Brian Branston, The Lost Gods of England
192.Jump up ^ Historian Michael Grant stated, "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." —Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Scribner, 1995). "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." —Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004, p.34.
Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, Eerdrmans (2004), page 24: "most scholars regard the argument for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response".
193.Jump up ^ Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) (2006). Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ISBN 0-8028-4880-X.
Further reading[edit]
This article's further reading may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive, less relevant or many publications with the same point of view; or by incorporating the relevant publications into the body of the article through appropriate citations. (August 2013)
Skeptical of Christianity[edit]
A Rationalist Encyclopaedia: A book of reference on religion, philosophy, ethics and science, Gryphon Books (1971).
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, by Daniel Dennett
Civilization and its discontents, by Sigmund Freud
Death and Afterlife, Perspectives of World Religions, by Hiroshi Obayashi
Einstein and Religion, by Max Jammer
From Jesus to Christianity, by L. Michael White
Future of an illusion, by Sigmund Freud
Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart Ehrman
Out of my later years and the World as I see it, by Albert Einstein
Russell on Religion, by Louis Greenspan (Includes most all of Russell's essays on religion)
The Antichrist, by Friedrich Nietzsche
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God, by Carl Sagan
Understanding the Bible, by Stephen L Harris
Where God and Science Meet [Three Volumes]: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion, by Patrick McNamara
Why I am not a Christian and other essays, by Bertrand Russell
Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, by John W. Loftus (Prometheus Books, 2008)
The Christian Delusion, edited by John W. Loftus, foreword by Dan Barker (Prometheus Books, 2010)
The End of Christianity, edited by John W. Loftus (Prometheus Books, 2011)
The Historical Evidence for Jesus, by G. A. Wells (Prometheus Books, 1988)
The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty (Age of Reason Publications, 1999)
The encyclopedia of Biblical errancy, by C. Dennis McKinsey (Prometheus Books, 1995)
godless, by Dan Barker (Ulysses Press 2008)
The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (Element 1999)
The reason driven life by Robert M. Price (Prometheus Books, 2006)
The case against the case for Christ by Robert M. Price (American atheist press 2010)
God, the failed hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger (Prometheus Books, 2007)
Jesus never existed by Kenneth Humphreys (Iconoclast Press, 2005)
Defending Christianity[edit]
Main article: List of Christian apologetic works
"The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity" by John Warwick Montgomery. An Excerpt from "Evidence for Faith" Chapter 6, Part 2 http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm
"The Infidel Delusion" by Patrick Chan, Jason Engwer, Steve Hays, and Paul Manata http://www.calvindude.com/ebooks/InfidelDelusion.pdf
Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies, by David Bentley Hart
Dethroning Jesus, by Darrell Bock, Daniel B. Wallace
Jesus Among Other Gods, by Ravi Zacharias
Mere Christianity, by C. S. Lewis
Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton
Reasonable Faith, by William Lane Craig
Reinventing Jesus, by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace
The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel
The Dawkins Letters, by David Robertson
The Reason For God, by Timothy J Keller
External links[edit]
This section's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (August 2013)
General[edit]
Professor James Tabor's educational site on the Jewish Roman world of Jesus
Roman Sources on the Jews and Judaism, 1 BCE-110 CE
Skeptical[edit]
The Warfare of Science With Theology by Andrew White
New Testament contradictions by Paul Carlson
Christian Anti-Semitism
PBS Special: Apocalypse! Contains Jesus' apocalyptic promises along with those of Saint Paul's.
From other religions[edit]
Chizzuk Emunah (Faith Strengthened): English translation of Isaac of Troki's 16th-century Jewish anti-Christian polemic
Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: Unhistorical Character of the Gospels
Apologetic[edit]
Reasonable Faith http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer
Probe Ministries
Ravi Zacharias International Ministries http://www.rzim.org/
Stand to Reason http://www.str.org/site/PageServer
Reasons to Believe http://www.reasons.org/
Debates[edit]
"Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Richard Carrier (audio) http://www.philvaz.com/CraigCarrierDebate.mp3
The Great Debate: Does God Exist?-transcript in PDF of a formal debate between presuppositionalist Christian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein.
The Martin-Frame Debate A written debate between skeptic Michael Martin and Christian John Frame about the transcendental argument for the existence of God.
The Drange-Wilson Debate A written debate between skeptic Theodore Drange and Christian Douglas Wilson.
"Is Non-Christian Thought Futile?" A written debate between Christian Doug Jones and skeptics Keith Parsons and Michael Martin in Antithesis magazine (vol. 2, no. 4).
"Is Christianity Good for the World?" A written debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and theologian Douglas Wilson in Christianity Today magazine (web only, May 2007).
God Debate: Sam Harris vs. Rick Warren Debate between Christian Rick Warren and atheist Sam Harris as reported by Newsweek (April 9, 2007).
"Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off." A video debate between Christians Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and atheists Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor of the Rational Response Squad. Report of the debate posted on the Nightline website. Video of the debate posted on The Way of the Master website.
The Jesseph-Craig Debate: Does God Exist? (1996)-Transcripts of a debate between Christian William Lane Craig and atheist Douglas M. Jesseph.
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Christianity
Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.
Category
Portal icon
WikiProject
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Criticism of religion
Categories: Criticism of Christianity
Criticism of religion
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Español
Français
한국어
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
Edit links
This page was last modified on 15 May 2015, at 13:21.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Christianity
Biblical archaeology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
It has been suggested that Biblical archaeology school be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since December 2014.
For the movement associated with William F. Albright and also known as biblical archaeology, see Biblical archaeology school. For the interpretation of biblical archaeology in relation to biblical historicity, see Historicity of the Bible and List of artifacts in biblical archaeology.
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible
Canons and books
[show]
Authorship and development
[show]
Translations and manuscripts
[show]
Biblical studies[show]
Interpretation[show]
Perspectives[show]
Wikipedia book Bible book Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
t ·
e
Biblical archaeology involves the recovery and scientific investigation of the material remains of past cultures that can illuminate the periods and descriptions in the Bible, be they from the Old Testament (Tanakh) or from the New Testament, as well as the history and cosmogony of the Judeo-Christian religions. The principal location of interest for this branch of the archaeological sciences is what is known in the relevant religions as the Holy Land, which from a western perspective is also called the Middle East. Even though the main reference points of biblical archaeology are mainly theological and religious, the study of these references is a methodical science. The scientific techniques used are the same as those used in general archaeology, such as excavation and radiocarbon dating among others. In contrast, the archaeology of the ancient Middle East simply deals with the Ancient Near East, or Middle East, without giving any especial consideration to whether its discoveries have any relationship with the Bible.
Biblical archaeology is polemical as there are a number of points of view regarding the nature of its purpose and aims, and what these should be. A number of points of view from important archaeologists are included in the section on Expert Commentaries.
Contents [hide]
1 Archaeology
2 Location
3 Dates
4 Periods in biblical archaeology
5 History 5.1 Stages in the development of biblical archaeology
6 Schools of thought in biblical archaeology
7 Brief summary of important archaeological sites and findings 7.1 Selected discoveries
7.2 Objects with unknown or disproved biblical origins
8 Biblical archaeology and the Catholic Church
9 Expert commentaries
10 Excavations and surveys
11 See also
12 References
13 Further reading
14 External links
Archaeology[edit]
Mosaic from a Byzantine Church dating from the 5th century. Mosaics are one of the main elements studied by biblical archaeology.
Main article: Archaeology
See also: Archaeological theory
In order to understand the significance of biblical archaeology it is first necessary to understand two basic concepts: archaeology as a scientific framework and the Bible as an object for research. Archaeology is a science, not in the Aristotelian sense of cognitio certa per causas but in the modern sense of systematic knowledge.[1] Vicente Vilar expands on this point by stating that archaeology is both art and science: as an art it searches for the material remains of ancient civilizations and tries to reconstruct, as far as possible, the environment and the organizations of one or many historical epochs;[1] as a relatively recent modern science, and as Benesch has said, it is a science that is barely 200 years old but that has, however, completely changed our ideas about the past.[2]
It might be thought that archaeology would have to disregard the information contained within religions and many philosophical systems. However, apart from the great deal of factual material that they provide such as places of worship, holy objects and other scientifically observable things, there are other aspects that are equally important for scientific archaeological investigation such as religious texts, rites, customs and traditions. Myths are commonly used by archaeologists and historians as clues to events or places that have become hidden in the background, a process that Rudolf Bultmann calls "demythification" – the most notable example being Homer’s poems and the mythical city of Troy. This contemporary perception of the myth, mainly developed by Bultmann, has encouraged scientists such as archaeologists to examine the areas indicated by the biblical tales.[3][4]
The Israel Museum in Jerusalem, holds valuable resources for both scientific and biblical research and exploration.
Biblical archaeology is the discipline occupied with the scientific investigation and recovery of the material remains of past cultures that can illuminate the times and descriptions of the Bible. A broad swathe of time between 2000 BC and 100 AD.[5] Other authors prefer to talk about the "archaeology of Palestine" and to define the relevant territories as those to the east and west of the River Jordan. This indicates that "biblical archaeology" or that of Palestine is circumscribed by the territories that were the backdrop to the biblical stories.
The raison d’etre of biblical archaeology derives from the fact that is allows an understanding of the peoples that inhabited the Holy Land. It allows an understanding of their history, culture, identity and movements. This makes it possible to know the exact location of the stories and compare them with fact. Regarding this, Kaswalder has noted that previously the American and Israeli school of biblical archaeology saw archaeology as proof of the veracity of the biblical stories,[6] as can be seen in the work of authors of the stature of William F. Albright, G. Ernest Wright and Yigael Yadin However, today archaeologist are not trying to prove that the stories in the Bible are true, they are trying to discover the historical world upon which the books of the bible drew and from which they derive their meaning. Using this approach, introduced by P. Kaswalder,[7] it is possible to shed light on the following, according to the classification presented by the Catalan papyrologist Joan Maria Vernet:[8]
Biblical archaeology can shed light on the knowledge that we have regarding certain historical data described in the biblical stories such as governments, people, battles and cities.
It allows us to provide some specific details reflected in the books of the bible for example Hezekiah's Tunnel, the Pool of Bethesda, Calvary and others that effectively relate to those described in the biblical stories.
Biblical archaeology lends fundamental support to exegetical studies.
Location[edit]
The territory known as the Middle East was without doubt the location of the events that inspired the writing of the biblical texts.
The geographical area that circumscribes the area of interest for biblical archaeology is obviously the biblical lands, also known as the "Holy Land". There are many points of view regarding the exact extent of this area, however, biblical archaeology specifically concentrates on the Land of Israel, Palestine and Jordan, the area called the southern Levant. Many researchers are also interested in other areas that are mentioned in the biblical tales and which have a great importance for their connecting thread: Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia which are of interest to scientists interested in the Tanakh. Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece and Rome have greater connections with the stories from the New Testament.
Dates[edit]
In the same way that the spatial criteria vary according to the various points of view of the different researchers, there are also a variety of dates that are of interest. Kaswalder comments that:
The period is understood to run from the 9th millennium BC, which corresponds to the earliest dated Neolithic remains of Jericho, to 700 AD, which marks the first invasions by Muslim armies. This time period is considered by some authorities to be too wide and controversial.
A second narrower period has been described that is more closely defined by the biblical stories: from the middle Bronze Age, that is from 2000 BC, which according to Biblical chronology corresponds with the time of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) until the end of the 1st century AD, with the death of the last apostle John the Evangelist and the end of the so-called Apostolic Church. The term Apostolic Church is taken to mean the historical period when Jesus's apostles were alive, including Paul of Tarsus. This period ends with the death of John the Evangelist, the exact date of his death is not known, but it is presumed to be around 110 AD. However, some scholars consider that the authors of the Fourth Gospel and the Book of Revelation may have been John’s disciples.
Periods in biblical archaeology[edit]
The following list of periods for Syro-Palestinian archaeology is based on the table provided in Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction, pp. 33-34[9] up to the end of the Iron Age, and from the definitions provided by the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, p. 55, for later periods.[10]
Neolithic period: ca. 8500–4300 BC Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) = ca. 8500–6000 Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) = ca. 8500–7500
Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) = 7500–6000
Pottery Neolithic: 6,000–4,300 BC Pottery Neolithic A (PNA) = 6000–5000
Pottery Neolithic B (PNB) = 5000–4300
Chalcolithic period: 4300–3300 BC
Bronze age: 3300-1200 BC Early Bronze (EB) Age = 3300-2300 BC Early Bronze I (EB I) = 3300–3050
Early Bronze II–Early Bronze III (EB II–EB III) = 3050–2300/2000
Middle Bronze (MB) Age = 2300/2000–1550 BC Early Bronze IV (EB IV)/Middle Bronze I (MB I) 2300–2000
Middle Bronze IIA (also called MB II) = 2000-1800/1750
Middle Bronze IIB-C III (also called MBII and III) = 1800/1750–1550
Late Bronze (LB) Age = 1550–1200 BC Late Bronze I (LB I) = 1550–1400
Late Bronze IIA–B (LB IIA–B) = 1400–1200
Iron Age: 1200-586 BC Iron IA = 1200–1150
Iron IB = 1150–1000
Iron IIA = 1000-925
Iron IIB = 925-720
Iron IIC = 720-586
Babylonian period: 586-539 BC
Persian period: 539-332 BC
Hellenistic period = 332-63 BC Early Hellenistic = 332-198
Late Hellenistic = 198-63
Roman period: 63 BC-324 AD
History[edit]
The study of biblical archaeology started at the same time as general archaeology and obviously its development relates to the discovery of highly important ancient artifacts.
Stages in the development of biblical archaeology[edit]
The development of biblical archaeology has been marked by different periods:
Ancient: Although archaeology can be considered to be a modern science it should be recognized that many historical authors have left valuable documents that even today are essential reading for students of biblical archaeology. The most important historical sources include Josephus, Origen, Eusebius and the Diary of Egeria. Egeria or Aetheria, was a Spanish woman who made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land between 381 and 384. Her diary of the journey, which was a surprisingly adventurous journey for a woman of that time, is a source of study and research even today.
Before the British Mandate in Palestine: The first archaeological explorations started in the 19th century initially by Europeans. There were many renowned archaeologists working at this time but one of the best known was Edward Robinson who discovered a number of ancient cities. The Palestine Exploration Fund was created in 1865 with Queen Victoria as its patron. Large investigations were carried out around the Temple in Jerusalem in 1867 by Charles Warren and Charles William Wilson,[11] for whom Jerusalem’s "Wilson’s Arch" is named. The American Palestine Exploration Society was founded in 1870. In the same year a young French archaeologist, Charles Clermont-Ganneau, arrived in the Holy Land in order to study two notable inscriptions: the Mesha Stele in Jordan and inscriptions in the Temple of Jerusalem. Another personality entered the scene in 1890, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, who has become known as the "father of Palestine archaeology". In Tell-el-Hesi, Petrie laid down the basis for methodical exploration by giving a great importance to the analysis of ceramics as archaeological markers. In effect, the recovered objects or fragments serve to fix the chronology with a degree of precision, as pottery was made in different ways and with specific characteristics during each epoch throughout history. In 1889 the Dominican Order opened the French Biblical and Archaeological School of Jerusalem, which would become world-renowned in its field. Such authorities as M-J. Lagrange and L. H. Vincent stand out among the early archaeologists at the school. In 1898, the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society) was founded in Berlin, a number of its excavations were subsequently funded by Emperor William II of Germany. Many other similar organizations were founded at this time with the objective of furthering this nascent discipline, although the investigations of this epoch had the sole objective of proving the veracity of the biblical stories.
During the British Mandate in Palestine (1922-1948): The investigation and exploration of the Holy Land increased considerably during this time and was dominated by the genius of William Foxwell Albright, C. S. Fischer, the Jesuits, the Dominicans and many others. This era of great advances and activity closed with a flourish: the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in 1947 and its subsequent excavation, which would in large part be directed by the Frenchman Roland de Vaux.
After the British Mandate: 1948 marked the start of a new social and political era for the Holy Land with the foundation of the State of Israel and the entrance on the scene of the Israeli archaeologists. Initially their excavations were limited to the territory of the state, but after the Six-Day War they extended into the occupied territories of the West Bank. An important figure in the archaeology of this period was Kathleen Kenyon, who directed the excavations of Jericho and the Ophel of Jerusalem. Crystal Bennett led the excavations at Petra and Amman’s citadel, Jabal al-Qal'a. The archaeological museums of the Franciscans and the Dominicans in Jerusalem are particularly notable.
Schools of thought in biblical archaeology[edit]
Main article: Biblical archaeology school
Biblical archaeology is the subject of permanent debate. One of the sources of greatest dispute is the period when kings ruled Israel and more generally the historicity of the Bible. It is possible to define two loose schools of thought regarding these areas: biblical minimalism and maximalism, depending on whether the bible is considered to be a non-historical, religious document or not. The two schools are not separate units but form a spectrum, making it difficult to define different camps and limits. However, it is possible to define points of difference, although these differences seem to be decreasing over time.
Brief summary of important archaeological sites and findings[edit]
Main article: List of artifacts significant to the Bible
The Caves at Qumran where biblical archaeology’s most important findings of all time were found, in the valley of the Dead Sea.
A summary of the excavations carried out in this area is included at Table I at the end of this article.
Archaeology in the Holy Lands has made a number of important findings. Perhaps the most important of these include:
Qumran: For many, this is the site of perhaps one of the most important finds of all time. It is composed of the Kiryit or ruins of a monastery pertaining to the Essenes, caves where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the monk’s cemetery and many other elements that have changed the history of biblical studies.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered by Bedouins in the caves of Kiryit Qumran in 1947 and subsequent excavations were initially led by Roland de Vaux. The Scrolls comprise some 800 documents in tens of thousands of fragments. Written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, they contain biblical and apocryphal works, prayers and legal texts and sectarian documents. Another piece of papyrus that has proved polemical is the so-called 7Q5, which is a small piece of papyrus whose origin is difficult to identify. The Spanish papyrologist Josep O’Callaghan Martínez, backed by the German biblical exegesist Carsten Peter Thiede, has concluded that it was a portion of a New Testament text, although this opinion remains controversial.
The Walls of Jericho: A stratum of burnt matter relating to the City-IV destruction has been dated to 1617–1530 BC at the end of the Middle Bronze Age. It contains remains of The Walls of Jericho, which were destroyed either by an earthquake or a siege. Opinions are divided as to whether this destruction corresponds to that described in the Bible. According to the biblical account the Israelites destroyed the city after its walls fell down in around 1407 BC. Excavations led by John Garstang in 1930 dated the destruction of Jericho to 1400 BC, which would confirm the biblical story. However, the site was re-excavated by Kathleen Kenyon in the 1950s and the destruction of the walls was redated to around 1550 BC. Bryant G. Wood later reviewed Kenyon’s field notes and made a number of criticisms of her work. Wood found a number of ambiguities in the investigations and he also pointed to results of carbon 14 tests on a burnt stratum that dated the layer to 1410 BC, with a margin of error of 40 years. Wood’s conclusions therefore confirmed Garstang’s original estimates. However, the carbon dating result was a consequence of an incorrect calibration. In 1995 Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht used a high precision radiocarbon dating test on 18 samples from Jericho, including six samples of carbonized cereal from the burnt stratum. The results of these tests gave the age of the strata as 1562 BC, with a margin of error of 38 years. These results therefore confirm Kenyon's estimate and cast doubt on the biblical story.[12][13][14]
First depiction of Jehu on the Black Obelisk he is seen prostrating at the feet of King Shalmaneser III.
Selected discoveries[edit]
A reconstruction of the Jerusalem of the 1st century AD, made possible thanks to the findings of Biblical Archaeology.
Detailed lists of objects can be found at the following pages:
List of artifacts significant to the Bible
List of burial places of biblical figures
Manuscripts of the bible: List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts, List of New Testament papyri and List of New Testament uncials
List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources
Objects with unknown or disproved biblical origins[edit]
Biblical archaeology has also been the target of several celebrated forgeries, which have been perpetrated for a variety of reasons. One of the most celebrated is that of the James Ossuary, when information came to light in 2002 regarding the discovery of an ossuary, with an inscription that said "Jacob, son of Joseph and brother of Jesus". In reality the artifact had been discovered twenty years before, after which it had exchanged hands a number of times and the inscription had been added. This was discovered because it did not correspond to the pattern of the epoch from which it dated.[15]
The objects in the following list generally come from private collections and were often purchased in antique’s markets. Their authenticity is highly controversial and in some cases they have been proved to be fakes.
The Ark of the Covenant: There have been a number of claims regarding the Ark’s current location. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims that it holds the Ark in Axum, Ethiopia. Local tradition claims that it was brought to Ethiopia by Menelik I with divine assistance, while a forgery was left in the Temple in Jerusalem.
Objects originating from the "antiques" dealer Oded Golan. As described above, the Israeli police accused Golan and his accomplices of falsifying the James Ossuary in 2004, they were also accused of falsifying a number of other objects: The Jehoash Inscription, which describes repairs to the temple in Jerusalem. It is suspected that the inscription has been falsified onto authentic ancient stones.
Various ostracas mentioning the temple or biblical names.
A stone candelabra with seven arms, decorated with a menorah from the temple.
A stone seal with gold borders that was attributed to King Manasseh of Judah.
A quartz plate with an inscription in the ancient Egyptian language stating that King Shishak had captured the ancient city of Megiddo.
An ivory pomegranate with the inscription "property of the priests of the Temple" carved on an authentic piece of antique ivory.
Numerous bullas, including some that mention biblical figures such as the scribe Baruch ben Neriah and the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel.
Various groups have claimed to have found Noah’s Ark. Many scholars consider that these findings belong to pseudoarcheology. An Italian creationist group called The Narkas is just one of the many groups that claim to know the exact location of the Ark’s remains on the summit of Mount Ararat, on the border between Turkey and Armenia. Photos of the site can be seen at the Narkas website.[16]
In 2004 an expedition investigated a ridge 19 km from the summit of Mount Ararat, which is believed to be an alternative landing site for the Ark. Samples were submitted to the Geological and Nuclear Sciences Crown Research Institute in Wellington, New Zealand for testing. However, geologists at the government institute concluded that the samples were volcanic rock and not petrified wood.[17]
Shroud of Turin: Critics insist that the linen cloth contains a painting of Jesus made in the Middle Ages. Others maintain that the image was formed by an energetic process that darkened the fibres of the shroud at the moment of resurrection. Radiocarbon dating of some sample material taken from the shroud has been dated to the Middle Ages, but some researchers claim that the samples were taken from a patch that had been re-woven into the shroud's border area during that time period.[18][19]
Saint Veronica’s Veil: A cloth with the face of a man, said to be Jesus by believers, imprinted on it. Believers think that it was the cloth used by Veronica to clean Jesus's face on the Via Dolorosa on the way to Calvary. There are at least six images in existence that bear a marked resemblance to each other and which all claim to be the original Veil.
Biblical archaeology and the Catholic Church[edit]
The majority of excavations and investigations carried out in the area where the biblical narratives are set mainly have the objective of casting light on the historical, cultural, economic and religious background to the texts, therefore their main objective is not usually proving the veracity of these stories. However, there are some groups that take a more fundamentalist approach and which organize archaeological campaigns with the intention of finding proof that the Bible is factual and that its narratives should be understood as historical events. This is not the position of the official Catholic Church.[20][21]
Archaeological investigations carried out with scientific methods can offer useful data in fixing a chronology that helps to order the biblical stories. In certain cases these investigations can find the place where these narratives took place. In other cases they can confirm the veracity of the stories. However, in other matters they can question events that have been taken as historical fact, providing arguments that show that certain stories are not historical narratives but belong to a different narrative genre.
In 1943, Pope Pius XII recommended that interpretations of the Scripture take archaeological findings into account in order to discern the literary genres that the Scriptures used.[22]
[...] the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. [...]Let those who cultivate biblical studies turn their attention with all due diligence towards this point and let them neglect none of those discoveries, whether in the domain of archaeology or in ancient history or literature, which serve to make better known the mentality of the ancient writers, as well as their manner and art of reasoning, narrating and writing.[...]
—Pius XII, Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, paragraphs 35 and 40
Since this time archaeology has been considered to provide valuable assistance and as an indispensable tool of the biblical sciences.
Expert commentaries[edit]
[...]"the purpose of biblical archaeology is the clarification and illumination of the biblical text and content through archaeological investigation of the biblical world."
—written by J.K. Eakins in a 1977 essay published in Benchmarks in Time and Culture and quoted in his essay "Archaeology and the Bible, An Introduction", [3].
Bryant G. Wood notes the consensus of archaeologists on the following point: "The purpose of biblical archaeology is to enhance our comprehension of the Bible, and so its greatest achievement, in my view, has been the extraordinary illumination of the . . . time of the Israelite monarchy".[23]
In a statement on biblical archaeology Robert I. Bradshaw has commented: "It is virtually universally agreed that the purpose of biblical archaeology is not to ‘prove’ the Bible. However ... in as much as archaeology sheds light on that history it is important to biblical studies."[24]
One of the world's leading biblical archaeologists, William G. Dever contributed to the article on "Archaeology" in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. In this article he reiterates his perceptions of the negative effects of the close relationship that has existed between Syro-Palestinian archaeology and biblical archaeology, which has caused the archaeologists working in this field, particularly the American archaeologists, to resist adoption of the new methods of "processual archaeology". In addition he considers that: "Underlying much scepticism in our own field [referring to the adaptation of the concepts and methods of a "new archaeology"], one suspects the assumption (although unexpressed or even unconscious) that ancient Palestine, especially Israel during the biblical period, was unique, in some "superhistorical" way that was not governed by the normal principles of cultural evolution".[25]
Dever found that Syro-Palestinian archaeology had been treated in American institutions as a sub discipline of bible studies. Where it was expected that American archaeologists would try to "provide valid historical evidence of episodes from the biblical tradition". According to Dever "the most naïve [idea regarding Syro-Palestinian archaeology] is that the reason and purpose of "biblical archaeology" (and, by extrapolation, of Syro-Palestinian archaeology) is simply elucidate facts regarding the Bible and the Holy Land".[26]
Dever has also written that:
"Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."[27] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archaeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archaeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archaeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archaeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.[28]
Dever also wrote:
Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence....[29] I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information...[30]
Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.[31][32]
Professor Finkelstein told the Jerusalem Post that Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of Canaan. On the alleged Temple of Solomon, Finkelstein said that there is no archaeological evidence to prove it really existed.[33] Professor Yoni Mizrahi, an independent archaeologist who has worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed with Israel Finkelstein.[33]
Regarding the Exodus of Israelites from Egypt, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said:
“Really, it’s a myth,”... “This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem.”[34]
Excavations and surveys[edit]
The following is a summary of important excavations and surveys:
Year
Site
Biblical name
Excavated by
Comment
‘rediscovered’ Petra on August 22, 1812. Al Khazneh Al Khazneh Johann Ludwig Burckhardt Al Khazneh ("The Treasury"; Arabic: الخزنة) is one of the most elaborate buildings in the ancient Jordanian city of Petra.
1841 Survey N/a Edward Robinson Robinson's Biblical Researches in Palestine, the Sinai, Petrae and Adjacent Regions, based on his survey of the Near East conducted over several years, proposed biblical names for modern sites.
1871-77 Survey N/a Charles Warren The Survey of Western Palestine, published by the Palestine Exploration Fund, reflected Warren's detailed field surveys in Palestine and especially the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Major discoveries included the foundation stones of Herod's Temple, the first Iron Age Hebrew inscriptions (jar handles with LMLK seals), and water shafts under the City of David.
1890 Tell el-Hesi Eglon Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie The site was believed at the time to be the biblical Lachish, but is now commonly identified with Eglon. Petrie noticed strata exposed by waterflow adjacent to the site, and popularized details of pottery groups excavated therefrom. This marked the introduction of scientific stratigraphy to Palestinian archaeology.
1891-92 Tell el-Hesi Eglon Frederick J. Bliss N/a
1898–1900 Tell es-Safi Gath? Frederick J. Bliss and R.A.S. Macalister N/a
1898–1900 Az-Zakariyya Azekah? Frederick J. Bliss and R.A.S. Macalister N/a
1898–1900 Tell ej-Judeideh Moresheth-Gath or Libnah? Frederick J. Bliss and R.A.S. Macalister N/a
1898–1900 Tell Sandahannah Mareshah? Frederick J. Bliss and R.A.S. Macalister N/a
1902–3, 1907–9 Gezer Gezer R.A.S. Macalister The Gezer calendar was discovered on the surface during this excavation.
1902–4 Taanach Taanach Ernst Sellin N/a
1903–5 Megiddo Megiddo Gottlieb Schumacher N/a
1905–7 Galilee Galilee Herman Kohl, Ernst Sellin, and Carl Watzinger A survey of ancient synagogues
1907–9 Shechem Shechem Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger N/a
1908, 1910–1 Samaria Samaria David G. Lyon, Clarence S. Fisher, and George A. Reisner N/a
1911–3 Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Duncan Mackenzie N/a
1921–3, 1925–8, 1930–3 Clarence S. Fisher, Alan Rowe, and Gerald M. Fitzgerald Beth Shean Beth Shean Clarence S. Fisher, Alan Rowe, and Gerald M. Fitzgerald N/a
1922–3 Tell el-Ful Gibeah? William F. Albright N/a
1925–39 Megiddo Megiddo Clarence S. Fisher, P.L.O. Guy, and Gordon Loud N/a
1926, 1928, 1930, 1932 Tell Beit Mirsim Eglon or Debir–Kirjath Sepher? William F. Albright N/a
1926–7, 1929, 1932, 1935 excavated Tell en-Nasbeh Mizpah in Benjamin William Frederic Badè N/a
1928–33 Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Elihu Grant N/a
1930–6 excavated Jericho Jericho John Garstang N/a
1931–3, 1935 excavated Samaria Samaria John W. Crowfoot N/a
1932–38 Lachish Lachish James L. Starkey The excavation was terminated when Starkey was killed by armed Arabs[35] near Hebron while on his way to the opening ceremonies of the Palestine Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem
1936–40 Beit She'arim Beit She'arim Benjamin Mazar N/a
1948–50, 1952–5 excavated Jaffa N/a Jacob Kaplan N/a
1954, 1959–62 excavated Ramat Rahel N/a Yohanan Aharoni N/a
1955–8, 1968 Hazor Hazor Yigael Yadin N/a
1956–7, 1959–60, 1962 excavated Gibeon Gibeon James B. Pritchard N/a
1961–7 excavated ) Jerusalem (City of David) N/a Kathleen Kenyon N/a
1962–7 Arad Arad Yohanan Aharoni and Ruth Amiran N/a
1962–3, 1965–72 Ashdod Ashdod Moshe Dothan N/a
1963–5 excavated Masada N/a Yigael Yadin N/a
1964–74 Gezer Gezer G. Ernest Wright, William G. Dever, and Joe D. Seger N/a
1968–78 Jerusalem (southwest corner of the Temple Mount) Temple Mount Benjamin Mazar N/a
1969–76 Beersheba Beersheba Yohanan Aharoni and Ze'ev Herzog N/a
1969–82 Jerusalem (Jewish Quarter) Jerusalem Nahman Avigad N/a
1973–94 Lachish Lachish David Ussishkin N/a
1975–82 Aroer Aroer Avraham Biran Aroer is an Israelite town in the Negev Desert, not to be confused with the Moabite Aroer located in Jordan
1977–9, 1981–9 Timnah Timnah Amihai Mazar and George L. Kelm N/a
1978–85 Jerusalem (City of David) Jerusalem Yigal Shiloh N/a
1979–80 Ketef Hinnom N/a Gabriel Barkay N/a
1966-1972 Et-Tell Ai Joseph A. Callaway
1981–2, 1984–8, 1990, 1992–6 Ekron Ekron Trude Dothan and Seymour Gitin N/a
1989–96 Beit-Shean Beit-Shean Amihai Mazar N/a
1994–ongoing Megiddo Megiddo Israel Finkelstein and Eric H. Cline N/a
1996–2002, 2004–ongoing Tell es-Safi (identified as biblical Gath of the Philistines) Gath Aren Maeir N/a
1997– Tel Rehov Amihai Mazar N/a
1999–2001, 2005 Tel Zayit Libnah Ron Tappy N/a
2005 Ramat Rahel N/a Oded Lipschits N/a
2005 Nahal Tut N/a Amir Gorzalczany and Gerald Finkielsztejn excavated N/a
2007 Khirbet Qeiyafa N/a Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor N/a
See also[edit]
Archaeology of Israel
Biblical Archaeology Review
The Bible's Buried Secrets
Biblical maximalism
Biblical minimalism
Church of the Holy Sepulchre
Flood geology
History of ancient Israel and Judah
Khirbet el-Qom
List of Biblical figures identified in extra-Biblical sources
Ostracon
Parchment
Synoptic table of the principal old world prehistoric cultures
Syro-Palestinian archaeology
7Q5, a Dead Sea scroll fragment
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Vilar, Vicente. Archeologia della Palestina. Enciclopedia della Biblia I, 672.,(in Italian)
2.Jump up ^ Kurt Benesch: Past to discover cited by J.M. Vernet in his "Curso Básico de Arqueología Bíblica", Teologado Salesiano Internacional de Ratisbonne, Jerusalén, 2001 (in Italian).
3.Jump up ^ R. Bultmann, Nuovo Testamento e mitología, p. 203 (in Italian)
4.Jump up ^ Cf. L. Randellini, voce Demitizzazione, in ER, vol. 2, coll. 623-635; Id., Bultmann’s hermeneutics condemn K. Barth and the existentialist interpretation that he applies to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (K. Barth, L'Epistola ai Romani): cfr. R. Marlé, o.c., pp. 36-41; J.M. Robinson, La Nuova Ermeneutica, pp. 34-35. 41-47 (In Italian)
5.Jump up ^ Volkmar Fritz, Introduzione all'archeologia biblica (tr. en. Introduction to biblical archaeology), pp 13-19
6.Jump up ^ Pietro Kaswalder, "L`archeologia biblica e le origini di Israele" (tr. en. Biblical archaeology and the origins of Israel), in Rivista Biblica 41, pp. 171-188, 1993.
7.Jump up ^ El archaeologist Father Pietro Kaswalder, O.F.M. is professor of Old Testament exegesis and archaeology at the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum in Jerusalem.
8.Jump up ^ J.M. Vernet, "Basic Course in Biblical Archaeology ", International Silesian Theologate of Ratisbonne, Jerusalem, 2001 (in Italian), p. 5
9.Jump up ^ Cline, E.H. (2009). "3". Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction (1 ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 33–34. ISBN 978-0-19-534263-5.
10.Jump up ^ Mills and Bullard, 1990, p. 55.
11.Jump up ^ Not to be confused with Charles Thomson Rees Wilson, the Scottish physicist and Nobel Prize winner.
12.Jump up ^ Bruins, Hendrik and van der Plicht, Johannes. "Tell-es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon results of short-lived cereal and multiyear charcoal samples from the end of the Middle Bronze Age." Radiocarbon vol.37, no.2, 1995, p. 213-220.
13.Jump up ^ Is Bryant Wood's chronology of Jericho valid?
14.Jump up ^ Ebon Musings: Let the Stones Speak
15.Jump up ^ Forgers "tried to rewrite biblical history", Conal Urquhart, The Guardian, Friday 31 December 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/dec/31/religion.israel.
16.Jump up ^ Narkas website http://www.noahsark.it.
17.Jump up ^ NZ man’s hunt for Noah’s Ark hits a rocky patch, The New Zealand Herald, 10 November 2004 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3608608.
18.Jump up ^ http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/science-shines-new-light-on-shroud-of-turins-age/
19.Jump up ^ R.N Rogers, "Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin", Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, 2005, pp. 189–194, article; S. Benford, J. Marino, "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud", Chemistry Today, vol 26 n 4 / July–August 2008, p. 4-12, article;Emmanuel Poulle, ″Les sources de l'histoire du linceul de Turin. Revue critique″, Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, 2009/3-4, Abstract; G. Fanti, F. Crosilla, M. Riani, A.C. Atkinson, "A Robust statistical analysis of the 1988 Turin Shroud radiocarbon analysis", Proceedings of the IWSAI, ENEA, 2010.
20.Jump up ^ Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible, by Ruth Gledhill, The Times, 5 October 2005, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article2599023.ece
21.Jump up ^ The Gift of Scripture, Party Two, Section 14 The truth of Scripture, p17 Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales and Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, 2005, http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Scripture/GoS.pdf
22.Jump up ^ Pius XII (30 September 1943). "Divino Afflante Spiritu Encyclical Of Pope Pius Xi On Promoting Biblical Studies". Retrieved 6 February 2013.
23.Jump up ^ Originally in Biblical Archaeology Review, May–June, 1995, p. 33 and quoted in web article Two Jigsaw Puzzles, Two Purposes, United Church of God Canada [1], viewed 6 February 2013.
24.Jump up ^ Archaeology & the Patriarchs, Robert I Bradshaw, 1992, web article, Biblical Studies.org.uk [2].
25.Jump up ^ The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Archaeology, W. Dever, p. 357
26.Jump up ^ The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Archaeology, W. Dever, p. 358
27.Jump up ^ Bible gets a reality check, MSNBC, Alan Boyle
28.Jump up ^ The Bible's Buried Secrets, PBS Nova, 2008
29.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (March–April 2006). "The Western Cultural Tradition Is at Risk". Biblical Archaeology Review 32 (2): 26 & 76.
30.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (January 2003). "Contra Davies". The Bible and Interpretation. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
31.Jump up ^ The Nature of Home: A Lexicon of Essays, Lisa Knopp, p. 126
32.Jump up ^ Deconstructing the walls of Jericho
33.^ Jump up to: a b http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/news/middle-east/2705-senior-israeli-archaeologist-casts-doubt-on-jewish-heritage-of-jerusalem
34.Jump up ^ Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say, The New York Times, April 3, 2007
35.Jump up ^ UN Archives REPORT by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938
Further reading[edit]
William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1940)
Anati E. Palestine Before the Hebrews: A History, From the Earliest Arrival of Man to the Conquest of Canaan, 1963
Chapman, and J.N. Tubb, Archaeology & The Bible (British Museum, 1990)
Cornfeld, G.and D.N. Freedman, Archaeology Of The Bible Book By Book (1989)
Davies, P.R., In Search of 'Ancient Israel': A Study in Biblical Origins, Sheffield (JSOT Press, 1992).
Davis, Thomas, Shifting sands: the rise and fall of Biblical archaeology (2004)
Dever, William G., "Archaeology and the Bible : Understanding their special relationship", in Biblical Archaeology Review 16:3, (May/June 1990)
Dever, William G. (2002). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-2126-X.
Dever, William G. (2003). Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-0975-8.
Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2001), The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, New York: Simon and Schuster, ISBN 0-7432-2338-1.
Frend, William Hugh Clifford, The Archaeology of Early Christianity. A History, Geoffrey Chapman, 1997. ISBN 0-225-66850-5
Frerichs, Ernest S. and Leonard H. Lesko eds. Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997 ISBN 1-57506-025-6 Denver Seminary review
Hallote, R. Bible, Map and Spade: The American Palestine Exploration Society, Frederick Jones Bliss and the Forgotten Story of Early American Biblical Archaeology, (Gorgias Press, 2006) Discusses American involvement in biblical archaeology before 1900.
Herzog, Ze'ev (October 29, 1999), Deconstructing the walls of Jericho, Ha'aretz.
Keller, Werner, The Bible as History, 1955.
Lance, H.D. The Old Testament and The Archaeologist. London, (1983)
Mancini, Ignazio. Archaeological Discoveries Relative to the Judaeo-Christians: Historical Survey, trans. [from Italian] by G. Bushnell [as] updated by the author. In series, Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum: Collectio minor, no. 10. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1970. Without ISBN or SBN
Mazar, A., Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (The Anchor Bible Reference Library, 1990)
Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2004). Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200–539 B.C.E. SBL Academia Biblica series, no. 12. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature.
Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2009),"Corrections and Updates to 'Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E.,' " Maarav 16/1, pp. 49–132.
Negev, Avraham, and Gibson, Shimon, (eds.) (2003). Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group.
Ramsey, George W. The Quest For The Historical Israel. London (1982)
Robinson, Edward (1856) Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1838–52, Boston, MA: Crocker and Brewster.
Schoville, Keith N. Biblical Archaeology in Focus. Baker Publishing Group, (1978).
Thompson, J.A., The Bible And Archaeology, revised edition (1973)
Wright, G. Ernest, Biblical Archaeology. Philadelphia: Westminster, (1962).
Yamauchi, E. The Stones And The Scriptures. London: IVP, (1973).
[hide]
v ·
t ·
e
The Bible and history
General studies
Biblical criticism ·
Biblical studies ·
History of ancient Israel and Judah ·
The Bible and history ·
Quest for the historical Jesus ·
Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg
Historicity
Biblical archaeology ·
Historicity of Jesus ·
Historicity of the Bible ·
Historical reliability of the Gospels ·
List of artifacts in biblical archaeology ·
List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources ·
List of burial places of biblical figures ·
List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts ·
List of New Testament papyri ·
List of New Testament uncials ·
Historical Jesus
Criticism
Criticism of the Bible ·
Christ myth theory
Bible Portal
External links[edit]
The Biblical Pseudo-Archeologists Pillaging the West Bank
Uncertainty in radiocarbon dating
Categories: Ancient Israel and Judah
Biblical archaeology
Hebrew Bible places
Torah places
New Testament places
Judaic studies in academia
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
Esperanto
Français
한국어
Italiano
עברית
Magyar
مصرى
Polski
Português
Русский
Slovenčina
Tagalog
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 24 April 2015, at 17:58.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology
Biblical archaeology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
It has been suggested that Biblical archaeology school be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since December 2014.
For the movement associated with William F. Albright and also known as biblical archaeology, see Biblical archaeology school. For the interpretation of biblical archaeology in relation to biblical historicity, see Historicity of the Bible and List of artifacts in biblical archaeology.
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible
Canons and books
[show]
Authorship and development
[show]
Translations and manuscripts
[show]
Biblical studies[show]
Interpretation[show]
Perspectives[show]
Wikipedia book Bible book Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
t ·
e
Biblical archaeology involves the recovery and scientific investigation of the material remains of past cultures that can illuminate the periods and descriptions in the Bible, be they from the Old Testament (Tanakh) or from the New Testament, as well as the history and cosmogony of the Judeo-Christian religions. The principal location of interest for this branch of the archaeological sciences is what is known in the relevant religions as the Holy Land, which from a western perspective is also called the Middle East. Even though the main reference points of biblical archaeology are mainly theological and religious, the study of these references is a methodical science. The scientific techniques used are the same as those used in general archaeology, such as excavation and radiocarbon dating among others. In contrast, the archaeology of the ancient Middle East simply deals with the Ancient Near East, or Middle East, without giving any especial consideration to whether its discoveries have any relationship with the Bible.
Biblical archaeology is polemical as there are a number of points of view regarding the nature of its purpose and aims, and what these should be. A number of points of view from important archaeologists are included in the section on Expert Commentaries.
Contents [hide]
1 Archaeology
2 Location
3 Dates
4 Periods in biblical archaeology
5 History 5.1 Stages in the development of biblical archaeology
6 Schools of thought in biblical archaeology
7 Brief summary of important archaeological sites and findings 7.1 Selected discoveries
7.2 Objects with unknown or disproved biblical origins
8 Biblical archaeology and the Catholic Church
9 Expert commentaries
10 Excavations and surveys
11 See also
12 References
13 Further reading
14 External links
Archaeology[edit]
Mosaic from a Byzantine Church dating from the 5th century. Mosaics are one of the main elements studied by biblical archaeology.
Main article: Archaeology
See also: Archaeological theory
In order to understand the significance of biblical archaeology it is first necessary to understand two basic concepts: archaeology as a scientific framework and the Bible as an object for research. Archaeology is a science, not in the Aristotelian sense of cognitio certa per causas but in the modern sense of systematic knowledge.[1] Vicente Vilar expands on this point by stating that archaeology is both art and science: as an art it searches for the material remains of ancient civilizations and tries to reconstruct, as far as possible, the environment and the organizations of one or many historical epochs;[1] as a relatively recent modern science, and as Benesch has said, it is a science that is barely 200 years old but that has, however, completely changed our ideas about the past.[2]
It might be thought that archaeology would have to disregard the information contained within religions and many philosophical systems. However, apart from the great deal of factual material that they provide such as places of worship, holy objects and other scientifically observable things, there are other aspects that are equally important for scientific archaeological investigation such as religious texts, rites, customs and traditions. Myths are commonly used by archaeologists and historians as clues to events or places that have become hidden in the background, a process that Rudolf Bultmann calls "demythification" – the most notable example being Homer’s poems and the mythical city of Troy. This contemporary perception of the myth, mainly developed by Bultmann, has encouraged scientists such as archaeologists to examine the areas indicated by the biblical tales.[3][4]
The Israel Museum in Jerusalem, holds valuable resources for both scientific and biblical research and exploration.
Biblical archaeology is the discipline occupied with the scientific investigation and recovery of the material remains of past cultures that can illuminate the times and descriptions of the Bible. A broad swathe of time between 2000 BC and 100 AD.[5] Other authors prefer to talk about the "archaeology of Palestine" and to define the relevant territories as those to the east and west of the River Jordan. This indicates that "biblical archaeology" or that of Palestine is circumscribed by the territories that were the backdrop to the biblical stories.
The raison d’etre of biblical archaeology derives from the fact that is allows an understanding of the peoples that inhabited the Holy Land. It allows an understanding of their history, culture, identity and movements. This makes it possible to know the exact location of the stories and compare them with fact. Regarding this, Kaswalder has noted that previously the American and Israeli school of biblical archaeology saw archaeology as proof of the veracity of the biblical stories,[6] as can be seen in the work of authors of the stature of William F. Albright, G. Ernest Wright and Yigael Yadin However, today archaeologist are not trying to prove that the stories in the Bible are true, they are trying to discover the historical world upon which the books of the bible drew and from which they derive their meaning. Using this approach, introduced by P. Kaswalder,[7] it is possible to shed light on the following, according to the classification presented by the Catalan papyrologist Joan Maria Vernet:[8]
Biblical archaeology can shed light on the knowledge that we have regarding certain historical data described in the biblical stories such as governments, people, battles and cities.
It allows us to provide some specific details reflected in the books of the bible for example Hezekiah's Tunnel, the Pool of Bethesda, Calvary and others that effectively relate to those described in the biblical stories.
Biblical archaeology lends fundamental support to exegetical studies.
Location[edit]
The territory known as the Middle East was without doubt the location of the events that inspired the writing of the biblical texts.
The geographical area that circumscribes the area of interest for biblical archaeology is obviously the biblical lands, also known as the "Holy Land". There are many points of view regarding the exact extent of this area, however, biblical archaeology specifically concentrates on the Land of Israel, Palestine and Jordan, the area called the southern Levant. Many researchers are also interested in other areas that are mentioned in the biblical tales and which have a great importance for their connecting thread: Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia which are of interest to scientists interested in the Tanakh. Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece and Rome have greater connections with the stories from the New Testament.
Dates[edit]
In the same way that the spatial criteria vary according to the various points of view of the different researchers, there are also a variety of dates that are of interest. Kaswalder comments that:
The period is understood to run from the 9th millennium BC, which corresponds to the earliest dated Neolithic remains of Jericho, to 700 AD, which marks the first invasions by Muslim armies. This time period is considered by some authorities to be too wide and controversial.
A second narrower period has been described that is more closely defined by the biblical stories: from the middle Bronze Age, that is from 2000 BC, which according to Biblical chronology corresponds with the time of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) until the end of the 1st century AD, with the death of the last apostle John the Evangelist and the end of the so-called Apostolic Church. The term Apostolic Church is taken to mean the historical period when Jesus's apostles were alive, including Paul of Tarsus. This period ends with the death of John the Evangelist, the exact date of his death is not known, but it is presumed to be around 110 AD. However, some scholars consider that the authors of the Fourth Gospel and the Book of Revelation may have been John’s disciples.
Periods in biblical archaeology[edit]
The following list of periods for Syro-Palestinian archaeology is based on the table provided in Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction, pp. 33-34[9] up to the end of the Iron Age, and from the definitions provided by the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, p. 55, for later periods.[10]
Neolithic period: ca. 8500–4300 BC Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) = ca. 8500–6000 Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) = ca. 8500–7500
Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) = 7500–6000
Pottery Neolithic: 6,000–4,300 BC Pottery Neolithic A (PNA) = 6000–5000
Pottery Neolithic B (PNB) = 5000–4300
Chalcolithic period: 4300–3300 BC
Bronze age: 3300-1200 BC Early Bronze (EB) Age = 3300-2300 BC Early Bronze I (EB I) = 3300–3050
Early Bronze II–Early Bronze III (EB II–EB III) = 3050–2300/2000
Middle Bronze (MB) Age = 2300/2000–1550 BC Early Bronze IV (EB IV)/Middle Bronze I (MB I) 2300–2000
Middle Bronze IIA (also called MB II) = 2000-1800/1750
Middle Bronze IIB-C III (also called MBII and III) = 1800/1750–1550
Late Bronze (LB) Age = 1550–1200 BC Late Bronze I (LB I) = 1550–1400
Late Bronze IIA–B (LB IIA–B) = 1400–1200
Iron Age: 1200-586 BC Iron IA = 1200–1150
Iron IB = 1150–1000
Iron IIA = 1000-925
Iron IIB = 925-720
Iron IIC = 720-586
Babylonian period: 586-539 BC
Persian period: 539-332 BC
Hellenistic period = 332-63 BC Early Hellenistic = 332-198
Late Hellenistic = 198-63
Roman period: 63 BC-324 AD
History[edit]
The study of biblical archaeology started at the same time as general archaeology and obviously its development relates to the discovery of highly important ancient artifacts.
Stages in the development of biblical archaeology[edit]
The development of biblical archaeology has been marked by different periods:
Ancient: Although archaeology can be considered to be a modern science it should be recognized that many historical authors have left valuable documents that even today are essential reading for students of biblical archaeology. The most important historical sources include Josephus, Origen, Eusebius and the Diary of Egeria. Egeria or Aetheria, was a Spanish woman who made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land between 381 and 384. Her diary of the journey, which was a surprisingly adventurous journey for a woman of that time, is a source of study and research even today.
Before the British Mandate in Palestine: The first archaeological explorations started in the 19th century initially by Europeans. There were many renowned archaeologists working at this time but one of the best known was Edward Robinson who discovered a number of ancient cities. The Palestine Exploration Fund was created in 1865 with Queen Victoria as its patron. Large investigations were carried out around the Temple in Jerusalem in 1867 by Charles Warren and Charles William Wilson,[11] for whom Jerusalem’s "Wilson’s Arch" is named. The American Palestine Exploration Society was founded in 1870. In the same year a young French archaeologist, Charles Clermont-Ganneau, arrived in the Holy Land in order to study two notable inscriptions: the Mesha Stele in Jordan and inscriptions in the Temple of Jerusalem. Another personality entered the scene in 1890, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, who has become known as the "father of Palestine archaeology". In Tell-el-Hesi, Petrie laid down the basis for methodical exploration by giving a great importance to the analysis of ceramics as archaeological markers. In effect, the recovered objects or fragments serve to fix the chronology with a degree of precision, as pottery was made in different ways and with specific characteristics during each epoch throughout history. In 1889 the Dominican Order opened the French Biblical and Archaeological School of Jerusalem, which would become world-renowned in its field. Such authorities as M-J. Lagrange and L. H. Vincent stand out among the early archaeologists at the school. In 1898, the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society) was founded in Berlin, a number of its excavations were subsequently funded by Emperor William II of Germany. Many other similar organizations were founded at this time with the objective of furthering this nascent discipline, although the investigations of this epoch had the sole objective of proving the veracity of the biblical stories.
During the British Mandate in Palestine (1922-1948): The investigation and exploration of the Holy Land increased considerably during this time and was dominated by the genius of William Foxwell Albright, C. S. Fischer, the Jesuits, the Dominicans and many others. This era of great advances and activity closed with a flourish: the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in 1947 and its subsequent excavation, which would in large part be directed by the Frenchman Roland de Vaux.
After the British Mandate: 1948 marked the start of a new social and political era for the Holy Land with the foundation of the State of Israel and the entrance on the scene of the Israeli archaeologists. Initially their excavations were limited to the territory of the state, but after the Six-Day War they extended into the occupied territories of the West Bank. An important figure in the archaeology of this period was Kathleen Kenyon, who directed the excavations of Jericho and the Ophel of Jerusalem. Crystal Bennett led the excavations at Petra and Amman’s citadel, Jabal al-Qal'a. The archaeological museums of the Franciscans and the Dominicans in Jerusalem are particularly notable.
Schools of thought in biblical archaeology[edit]
Main article: Biblical archaeology school
Biblical archaeology is the subject of permanent debate. One of the sources of greatest dispute is the period when kings ruled Israel and more generally the historicity of the Bible. It is possible to define two loose schools of thought regarding these areas: biblical minimalism and maximalism, depending on whether the bible is considered to be a non-historical, religious document or not. The two schools are not separate units but form a spectrum, making it difficult to define different camps and limits. However, it is possible to define points of difference, although these differences seem to be decreasing over time.
Brief summary of important archaeological sites and findings[edit]
Main article: List of artifacts significant to the Bible
The Caves at Qumran where biblical archaeology’s most important findings of all time were found, in the valley of the Dead Sea.
A summary of the excavations carried out in this area is included at Table I at the end of this article.
Archaeology in the Holy Lands has made a number of important findings. Perhaps the most important of these include:
Qumran: For many, this is the site of perhaps one of the most important finds of all time. It is composed of the Kiryit or ruins of a monastery pertaining to the Essenes, caves where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the monk’s cemetery and many other elements that have changed the history of biblical studies.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered by Bedouins in the caves of Kiryit Qumran in 1947 and subsequent excavations were initially led by Roland de Vaux. The Scrolls comprise some 800 documents in tens of thousands of fragments. Written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, they contain biblical and apocryphal works, prayers and legal texts and sectarian documents. Another piece of papyrus that has proved polemical is the so-called 7Q5, which is a small piece of papyrus whose origin is difficult to identify. The Spanish papyrologist Josep O’Callaghan Martínez, backed by the German biblical exegesist Carsten Peter Thiede, has concluded that it was a portion of a New Testament text, although this opinion remains controversial.
The Walls of Jericho: A stratum of burnt matter relating to the City-IV destruction has been dated to 1617–1530 BC at the end of the Middle Bronze Age. It contains remains of The Walls of Jericho, which were destroyed either by an earthquake or a siege. Opinions are divided as to whether this destruction corresponds to that described in the Bible. According to the biblical account the Israelites destroyed the city after its walls fell down in around 1407 BC. Excavations led by John Garstang in 1930 dated the destruction of Jericho to 1400 BC, which would confirm the biblical story. However, the site was re-excavated by Kathleen Kenyon in the 1950s and the destruction of the walls was redated to around 1550 BC. Bryant G. Wood later reviewed Kenyon’s field notes and made a number of criticisms of her work. Wood found a number of ambiguities in the investigations and he also pointed to results of carbon 14 tests on a burnt stratum that dated the layer to 1410 BC, with a margin of error of 40 years. Wood’s conclusions therefore confirmed Garstang’s original estimates. However, the carbon dating result was a consequence of an incorrect calibration. In 1995 Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht used a high precision radiocarbon dating test on 18 samples from Jericho, including six samples of carbonized cereal from the burnt stratum. The results of these tests gave the age of the strata as 1562 BC, with a margin of error of 38 years. These results therefore confirm Kenyon's estimate and cast doubt on the biblical story.[12][13][14]
First depiction of Jehu on the Black Obelisk he is seen prostrating at the feet of King Shalmaneser III.
Selected discoveries[edit]
A reconstruction of the Jerusalem of the 1st century AD, made possible thanks to the findings of Biblical Archaeology.
Detailed lists of objects can be found at the following pages:
List of artifacts significant to the Bible
List of burial places of biblical figures
Manuscripts of the bible: List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts, List of New Testament papyri and List of New Testament uncials
List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources
Objects with unknown or disproved biblical origins[edit]
Biblical archaeology has also been the target of several celebrated forgeries, which have been perpetrated for a variety of reasons. One of the most celebrated is that of the James Ossuary, when information came to light in 2002 regarding the discovery of an ossuary, with an inscription that said "Jacob, son of Joseph and brother of Jesus". In reality the artifact had been discovered twenty years before, after which it had exchanged hands a number of times and the inscription had been added. This was discovered because it did not correspond to the pattern of the epoch from which it dated.[15]
The objects in the following list generally come from private collections and were often purchased in antique’s markets. Their authenticity is highly controversial and in some cases they have been proved to be fakes.
The Ark of the Covenant: There have been a number of claims regarding the Ark’s current location. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims that it holds the Ark in Axum, Ethiopia. Local tradition claims that it was brought to Ethiopia by Menelik I with divine assistance, while a forgery was left in the Temple in Jerusalem.
Objects originating from the "antiques" dealer Oded Golan. As described above, the Israeli police accused Golan and his accomplices of falsifying the James Ossuary in 2004, they were also accused of falsifying a number of other objects: The Jehoash Inscription, which describes repairs to the temple in Jerusalem. It is suspected that the inscription has been falsified onto authentic ancient stones.
Various ostracas mentioning the temple or biblical names.
A stone candelabra with seven arms, decorated with a menorah from the temple.
A stone seal with gold borders that was attributed to King Manasseh of Judah.
A quartz plate with an inscription in the ancient Egyptian language stating that King Shishak had captured the ancient city of Megiddo.
An ivory pomegranate with the inscription "property of the priests of the Temple" carved on an authentic piece of antique ivory.
Numerous bullas, including some that mention biblical figures such as the scribe Baruch ben Neriah and the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel.
Various groups have claimed to have found Noah’s Ark. Many scholars consider that these findings belong to pseudoarcheology. An Italian creationist group called The Narkas is just one of the many groups that claim to know the exact location of the Ark’s remains on the summit of Mount Ararat, on the border between Turkey and Armenia. Photos of the site can be seen at the Narkas website.[16]
In 2004 an expedition investigated a ridge 19 km from the summit of Mount Ararat, which is believed to be an alternative landing site for the Ark. Samples were submitted to the Geological and Nuclear Sciences Crown Research Institute in Wellington, New Zealand for testing. However, geologists at the government institute concluded that the samples were volcanic rock and not petrified wood.[17]
Shroud of Turin: Critics insist that the linen cloth contains a painting of Jesus made in the Middle Ages. Others maintain that the image was formed by an energetic process that darkened the fibres of the shroud at the moment of resurrection. Radiocarbon dating of some sample material taken from the shroud has been dated to the Middle Ages, but some researchers claim that the samples were taken from a patch that had been re-woven into the shroud's border area during that time period.[18][19]
Saint Veronica’s Veil: A cloth with the face of a man, said to be Jesus by believers, imprinted on it. Believers think that it was the cloth used by Veronica to clean Jesus's face on the Via Dolorosa on the way to Calvary. There are at least six images in existence that bear a marked resemblance to each other and which all claim to be the original Veil.
Biblical archaeology and the Catholic Church[edit]
The majority of excavations and investigations carried out in the area where the biblical narratives are set mainly have the objective of casting light on the historical, cultural, economic and religious background to the texts, therefore their main objective is not usually proving the veracity of these stories. However, there are some groups that take a more fundamentalist approach and which organize archaeological campaigns with the intention of finding proof that the Bible is factual and that its narratives should be understood as historical events. This is not the position of the official Catholic Church.[20][21]
Archaeological investigations carried out with scientific methods can offer useful data in fixing a chronology that helps to order the biblical stories. In certain cases these investigations can find the place where these narratives took place. In other cases they can confirm the veracity of the stories. However, in other matters they can question events that have been taken as historical fact, providing arguments that show that certain stories are not historical narratives but belong to a different narrative genre.
In 1943, Pope Pius XII recommended that interpretations of the Scripture take archaeological findings into account in order to discern the literary genres that the Scriptures used.[22]
[...] the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. [...]Let those who cultivate biblical studies turn their attention with all due diligence towards this point and let them neglect none of those discoveries, whether in the domain of archaeology or in ancient history or literature, which serve to make better known the mentality of the ancient writers, as well as their manner and art of reasoning, narrating and writing.[...]
—Pius XII, Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, paragraphs 35 and 40
Since this time archaeology has been considered to provide valuable assistance and as an indispensable tool of the biblical sciences.
Expert commentaries[edit]
[...]"the purpose of biblical archaeology is the clarification and illumination of the biblical text and content through archaeological investigation of the biblical world."
—written by J.K. Eakins in a 1977 essay published in Benchmarks in Time and Culture and quoted in his essay "Archaeology and the Bible, An Introduction", [3].
Bryant G. Wood notes the consensus of archaeologists on the following point: "The purpose of biblical archaeology is to enhance our comprehension of the Bible, and so its greatest achievement, in my view, has been the extraordinary illumination of the . . . time of the Israelite monarchy".[23]
In a statement on biblical archaeology Robert I. Bradshaw has commented: "It is virtually universally agreed that the purpose of biblical archaeology is not to ‘prove’ the Bible. However ... in as much as archaeology sheds light on that history it is important to biblical studies."[24]
One of the world's leading biblical archaeologists, William G. Dever contributed to the article on "Archaeology" in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. In this article he reiterates his perceptions of the negative effects of the close relationship that has existed between Syro-Palestinian archaeology and biblical archaeology, which has caused the archaeologists working in this field, particularly the American archaeologists, to resist adoption of the new methods of "processual archaeology". In addition he considers that: "Underlying much scepticism in our own field [referring to the adaptation of the concepts and methods of a "new archaeology"], one suspects the assumption (although unexpressed or even unconscious) that ancient Palestine, especially Israel during the biblical period, was unique, in some "superhistorical" way that was not governed by the normal principles of cultural evolution".[25]
Dever found that Syro-Palestinian archaeology had been treated in American institutions as a sub discipline of bible studies. Where it was expected that American archaeologists would try to "provide valid historical evidence of episodes from the biblical tradition". According to Dever "the most naïve [idea regarding Syro-Palestinian archaeology] is that the reason and purpose of "biblical archaeology" (and, by extrapolation, of Syro-Palestinian archaeology) is simply elucidate facts regarding the Bible and the Holy Land".[26]
Dever has also written that:
"Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."[27] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archaeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archaeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archaeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archaeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.[28]
Dever also wrote:
Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence....[29] I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information...[30]
Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.[31][32]
Professor Finkelstein told the Jerusalem Post that Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of Canaan. On the alleged Temple of Solomon, Finkelstein said that there is no archaeological evidence to prove it really existed.[33] Professor Yoni Mizrahi, an independent archaeologist who has worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed with Israel Finkelstein.[33]
Regarding the Exodus of Israelites from Egypt, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said:
“Really, it’s a myth,”... “This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem.”[34]
Excavations and surveys[edit]
The following is a summary of important excavations and surveys:
Year
Site
Biblical name
Excavated by
Comment
‘rediscovered’ Petra on August 22, 1812. Al Khazneh Al Khazneh Johann Ludwig Burckhardt Al Khazneh ("The Treasury"; Arabic: الخزنة) is one of the most elaborate buildings in the ancient Jordanian city of Petra.
1841 Survey N/a Edward Robinson Robinson's Biblical Researches in Palestine, the Sinai, Petrae and Adjacent Regions, based on his survey of the Near East conducted over several years, proposed biblical names for modern sites.
1871-77 Survey N/a Charles Warren The Survey of Western Palestine, published by the Palestine Exploration Fund, reflected Warren's detailed field surveys in Palestine and especially the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Major discoveries included the foundation stones of Herod's Temple, the first Iron Age Hebrew inscriptions (jar handles with LMLK seals), and water shafts under the City of David.
1890 Tell el-Hesi Eglon Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie The site was believed at the time to be the biblical Lachish, but is now commonly identified with Eglon. Petrie noticed strata exposed by waterflow adjacent to the site, and popularized details of pottery groups excavated therefrom. This marked the introduction of scientific stratigraphy to Palestinian archaeology.
1891-92 Tell el-Hesi Eglon Frederick J. Bliss N/a
1898–1900 Tell es-Safi Gath? Frederick J. Bliss and R.A.S. Macalister N/a
1898–1900 Az-Zakariyya Azekah? Frederick J. Bliss and R.A.S. Macalister N/a
1898–1900 Tell ej-Judeideh Moresheth-Gath or Libnah? Frederick J. Bliss and R.A.S. Macalister N/a
1898–1900 Tell Sandahannah Mareshah? Frederick J. Bliss and R.A.S. Macalister N/a
1902–3, 1907–9 Gezer Gezer R.A.S. Macalister The Gezer calendar was discovered on the surface during this excavation.
1902–4 Taanach Taanach Ernst Sellin N/a
1903–5 Megiddo Megiddo Gottlieb Schumacher N/a
1905–7 Galilee Galilee Herman Kohl, Ernst Sellin, and Carl Watzinger A survey of ancient synagogues
1907–9 Shechem Shechem Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger N/a
1908, 1910–1 Samaria Samaria David G. Lyon, Clarence S. Fisher, and George A. Reisner N/a
1911–3 Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Duncan Mackenzie N/a
1921–3, 1925–8, 1930–3 Clarence S. Fisher, Alan Rowe, and Gerald M. Fitzgerald Beth Shean Beth Shean Clarence S. Fisher, Alan Rowe, and Gerald M. Fitzgerald N/a
1922–3 Tell el-Ful Gibeah? William F. Albright N/a
1925–39 Megiddo Megiddo Clarence S. Fisher, P.L.O. Guy, and Gordon Loud N/a
1926, 1928, 1930, 1932 Tell Beit Mirsim Eglon or Debir–Kirjath Sepher? William F. Albright N/a
1926–7, 1929, 1932, 1935 excavated Tell en-Nasbeh Mizpah in Benjamin William Frederic Badè N/a
1928–33 Beth Shemesh Beth Shemesh Elihu Grant N/a
1930–6 excavated Jericho Jericho John Garstang N/a
1931–3, 1935 excavated Samaria Samaria John W. Crowfoot N/a
1932–38 Lachish Lachish James L. Starkey The excavation was terminated when Starkey was killed by armed Arabs[35] near Hebron while on his way to the opening ceremonies of the Palestine Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem
1936–40 Beit She'arim Beit She'arim Benjamin Mazar N/a
1948–50, 1952–5 excavated Jaffa N/a Jacob Kaplan N/a
1954, 1959–62 excavated Ramat Rahel N/a Yohanan Aharoni N/a
1955–8, 1968 Hazor Hazor Yigael Yadin N/a
1956–7, 1959–60, 1962 excavated Gibeon Gibeon James B. Pritchard N/a
1961–7 excavated ) Jerusalem (City of David) N/a Kathleen Kenyon N/a
1962–7 Arad Arad Yohanan Aharoni and Ruth Amiran N/a
1962–3, 1965–72 Ashdod Ashdod Moshe Dothan N/a
1963–5 excavated Masada N/a Yigael Yadin N/a
1964–74 Gezer Gezer G. Ernest Wright, William G. Dever, and Joe D. Seger N/a
1968–78 Jerusalem (southwest corner of the Temple Mount) Temple Mount Benjamin Mazar N/a
1969–76 Beersheba Beersheba Yohanan Aharoni and Ze'ev Herzog N/a
1969–82 Jerusalem (Jewish Quarter) Jerusalem Nahman Avigad N/a
1973–94 Lachish Lachish David Ussishkin N/a
1975–82 Aroer Aroer Avraham Biran Aroer is an Israelite town in the Negev Desert, not to be confused with the Moabite Aroer located in Jordan
1977–9, 1981–9 Timnah Timnah Amihai Mazar and George L. Kelm N/a
1978–85 Jerusalem (City of David) Jerusalem Yigal Shiloh N/a
1979–80 Ketef Hinnom N/a Gabriel Barkay N/a
1966-1972 Et-Tell Ai Joseph A. Callaway
1981–2, 1984–8, 1990, 1992–6 Ekron Ekron Trude Dothan and Seymour Gitin N/a
1989–96 Beit-Shean Beit-Shean Amihai Mazar N/a
1994–ongoing Megiddo Megiddo Israel Finkelstein and Eric H. Cline N/a
1996–2002, 2004–ongoing Tell es-Safi (identified as biblical Gath of the Philistines) Gath Aren Maeir N/a
1997– Tel Rehov Amihai Mazar N/a
1999–2001, 2005 Tel Zayit Libnah Ron Tappy N/a
2005 Ramat Rahel N/a Oded Lipschits N/a
2005 Nahal Tut N/a Amir Gorzalczany and Gerald Finkielsztejn excavated N/a
2007 Khirbet Qeiyafa N/a Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor N/a
See also[edit]
Archaeology of Israel
Biblical Archaeology Review
The Bible's Buried Secrets
Biblical maximalism
Biblical minimalism
Church of the Holy Sepulchre
Flood geology
History of ancient Israel and Judah
Khirbet el-Qom
List of Biblical figures identified in extra-Biblical sources
Ostracon
Parchment
Synoptic table of the principal old world prehistoric cultures
Syro-Palestinian archaeology
7Q5, a Dead Sea scroll fragment
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Vilar, Vicente. Archeologia della Palestina. Enciclopedia della Biblia I, 672.,(in Italian)
2.Jump up ^ Kurt Benesch: Past to discover cited by J.M. Vernet in his "Curso Básico de Arqueología Bíblica", Teologado Salesiano Internacional de Ratisbonne, Jerusalén, 2001 (in Italian).
3.Jump up ^ R. Bultmann, Nuovo Testamento e mitología, p. 203 (in Italian)
4.Jump up ^ Cf. L. Randellini, voce Demitizzazione, in ER, vol. 2, coll. 623-635; Id., Bultmann’s hermeneutics condemn K. Barth and the existentialist interpretation that he applies to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (K. Barth, L'Epistola ai Romani): cfr. R. Marlé, o.c., pp. 36-41; J.M. Robinson, La Nuova Ermeneutica, pp. 34-35. 41-47 (In Italian)
5.Jump up ^ Volkmar Fritz, Introduzione all'archeologia biblica (tr. en. Introduction to biblical archaeology), pp 13-19
6.Jump up ^ Pietro Kaswalder, "L`archeologia biblica e le origini di Israele" (tr. en. Biblical archaeology and the origins of Israel), in Rivista Biblica 41, pp. 171-188, 1993.
7.Jump up ^ El archaeologist Father Pietro Kaswalder, O.F.M. is professor of Old Testament exegesis and archaeology at the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum in Jerusalem.
8.Jump up ^ J.M. Vernet, "Basic Course in Biblical Archaeology ", International Silesian Theologate of Ratisbonne, Jerusalem, 2001 (in Italian), p. 5
9.Jump up ^ Cline, E.H. (2009). "3". Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction (1 ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 33–34. ISBN 978-0-19-534263-5.
10.Jump up ^ Mills and Bullard, 1990, p. 55.
11.Jump up ^ Not to be confused with Charles Thomson Rees Wilson, the Scottish physicist and Nobel Prize winner.
12.Jump up ^ Bruins, Hendrik and van der Plicht, Johannes. "Tell-es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon results of short-lived cereal and multiyear charcoal samples from the end of the Middle Bronze Age." Radiocarbon vol.37, no.2, 1995, p. 213-220.
13.Jump up ^ Is Bryant Wood's chronology of Jericho valid?
14.Jump up ^ Ebon Musings: Let the Stones Speak
15.Jump up ^ Forgers "tried to rewrite biblical history", Conal Urquhart, The Guardian, Friday 31 December 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/dec/31/religion.israel.
16.Jump up ^ Narkas website http://www.noahsark.it.
17.Jump up ^ NZ man’s hunt for Noah’s Ark hits a rocky patch, The New Zealand Herald, 10 November 2004 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3608608.
18.Jump up ^ http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/science-shines-new-light-on-shroud-of-turins-age/
19.Jump up ^ R.N Rogers, "Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin", Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, 2005, pp. 189–194, article; S. Benford, J. Marino, "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud", Chemistry Today, vol 26 n 4 / July–August 2008, p. 4-12, article;Emmanuel Poulle, ″Les sources de l'histoire du linceul de Turin. Revue critique″, Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, 2009/3-4, Abstract; G. Fanti, F. Crosilla, M. Riani, A.C. Atkinson, "A Robust statistical analysis of the 1988 Turin Shroud radiocarbon analysis", Proceedings of the IWSAI, ENEA, 2010.
20.Jump up ^ Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible, by Ruth Gledhill, The Times, 5 October 2005, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article2599023.ece
21.Jump up ^ The Gift of Scripture, Party Two, Section 14 The truth of Scripture, p17 Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales and Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, 2005, http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Scripture/GoS.pdf
22.Jump up ^ Pius XII (30 September 1943). "Divino Afflante Spiritu Encyclical Of Pope Pius Xi On Promoting Biblical Studies". Retrieved 6 February 2013.
23.Jump up ^ Originally in Biblical Archaeology Review, May–June, 1995, p. 33 and quoted in web article Two Jigsaw Puzzles, Two Purposes, United Church of God Canada [1], viewed 6 February 2013.
24.Jump up ^ Archaeology & the Patriarchs, Robert I Bradshaw, 1992, web article, Biblical Studies.org.uk [2].
25.Jump up ^ The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Archaeology, W. Dever, p. 357
26.Jump up ^ The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Archaeology, W. Dever, p. 358
27.Jump up ^ Bible gets a reality check, MSNBC, Alan Boyle
28.Jump up ^ The Bible's Buried Secrets, PBS Nova, 2008
29.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (March–April 2006). "The Western Cultural Tradition Is at Risk". Biblical Archaeology Review 32 (2): 26 & 76.
30.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (January 2003). "Contra Davies". The Bible and Interpretation. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
31.Jump up ^ The Nature of Home: A Lexicon of Essays, Lisa Knopp, p. 126
32.Jump up ^ Deconstructing the walls of Jericho
33.^ Jump up to: a b http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/news/middle-east/2705-senior-israeli-archaeologist-casts-doubt-on-jewish-heritage-of-jerusalem
34.Jump up ^ Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say, The New York Times, April 3, 2007
35.Jump up ^ UN Archives REPORT by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938
Further reading[edit]
William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1940)
Anati E. Palestine Before the Hebrews: A History, From the Earliest Arrival of Man to the Conquest of Canaan, 1963
Chapman, and J.N. Tubb, Archaeology & The Bible (British Museum, 1990)
Cornfeld, G.and D.N. Freedman, Archaeology Of The Bible Book By Book (1989)
Davies, P.R., In Search of 'Ancient Israel': A Study in Biblical Origins, Sheffield (JSOT Press, 1992).
Davis, Thomas, Shifting sands: the rise and fall of Biblical archaeology (2004)
Dever, William G., "Archaeology and the Bible : Understanding their special relationship", in Biblical Archaeology Review 16:3, (May/June 1990)
Dever, William G. (2002). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-2126-X.
Dever, William G. (2003). Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-0975-8.
Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2001), The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, New York: Simon and Schuster, ISBN 0-7432-2338-1.
Frend, William Hugh Clifford, The Archaeology of Early Christianity. A History, Geoffrey Chapman, 1997. ISBN 0-225-66850-5
Frerichs, Ernest S. and Leonard H. Lesko eds. Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997 ISBN 1-57506-025-6 Denver Seminary review
Hallote, R. Bible, Map and Spade: The American Palestine Exploration Society, Frederick Jones Bliss and the Forgotten Story of Early American Biblical Archaeology, (Gorgias Press, 2006) Discusses American involvement in biblical archaeology before 1900.
Herzog, Ze'ev (October 29, 1999), Deconstructing the walls of Jericho, Ha'aretz.
Keller, Werner, The Bible as History, 1955.
Lance, H.D. The Old Testament and The Archaeologist. London, (1983)
Mancini, Ignazio. Archaeological Discoveries Relative to the Judaeo-Christians: Historical Survey, trans. [from Italian] by G. Bushnell [as] updated by the author. In series, Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum: Collectio minor, no. 10. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1970. Without ISBN or SBN
Mazar, A., Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (The Anchor Bible Reference Library, 1990)
Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2004). Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200–539 B.C.E. SBL Academia Biblica series, no. 12. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature.
Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2009),"Corrections and Updates to 'Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E.,' " Maarav 16/1, pp. 49–132.
Negev, Avraham, and Gibson, Shimon, (eds.) (2003). Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group.
Ramsey, George W. The Quest For The Historical Israel. London (1982)
Robinson, Edward (1856) Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1838–52, Boston, MA: Crocker and Brewster.
Schoville, Keith N. Biblical Archaeology in Focus. Baker Publishing Group, (1978).
Thompson, J.A., The Bible And Archaeology, revised edition (1973)
Wright, G. Ernest, Biblical Archaeology. Philadelphia: Westminster, (1962).
Yamauchi, E. The Stones And The Scriptures. London: IVP, (1973).
[hide]
v ·
t ·
e
The Bible and history
General studies
Biblical criticism ·
Biblical studies ·
History of ancient Israel and Judah ·
The Bible and history ·
Quest for the historical Jesus ·
Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg
Historicity
Biblical archaeology ·
Historicity of Jesus ·
Historicity of the Bible ·
Historical reliability of the Gospels ·
List of artifacts in biblical archaeology ·
List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources ·
List of burial places of biblical figures ·
List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts ·
List of New Testament papyri ·
List of New Testament uncials ·
Historical Jesus
Criticism
Criticism of the Bible ·
Christ myth theory
Bible Portal
External links[edit]
The Biblical Pseudo-Archeologists Pillaging the West Bank
Uncertainty in radiocarbon dating
Categories: Ancient Israel and Judah
Biblical archaeology
Hebrew Bible places
Torah places
New Testament places
Judaic studies in academia
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
Esperanto
Français
한국어
Italiano
עברית
Magyar
مصرى
Polski
Português
Русский
Slovenčina
Tagalog
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 24 April 2015, at 17:58.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology
Historicity of the Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from History and the Bible)
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible
Canons and books
[show]
Authorship and development
[show]
Translations and manuscripts
[show]
Biblical studies[show]
Interpretation[show]
Perspectives[show]
Wikipedia book Bible book Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
t ·
e
The historicity of the Bible is the question of its "acceptability as a history," in the phrase of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study compare the Bible and history, ranging from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries in the nineteenth and twentieth century have supported some of the Old Testament's historical narratives and refuted some of the others.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
Contents [hide]
1 Materials and methods 1.1 Manuscripts and canons
1.2 Texts 1.2.1 Hebrew Bible
1.2.2 New Testament
1.3 Extra-biblical sources
1.4 Writing and reading history
2 Challenges to historicity 2.1 The Hebrew Bible 2.1.1 Genesis: Literal vs. Symbolic Interpretation
2.1.2 Authorship of the Torah
2.1.3 Historicity of events in Ancient Israel and Judah
2.2 New Testament 2.2.1 Historicity of Jesus
2.2.2 Historicity of the Gospels
2.2.3 Historicity of the Acts
3 Schools of archaeological and historical thought 3.1 Overview of academic views
3.2 Maximalist – Minimalist dichotomy
3.3 Biblical minimalism
3.4 Biblical maximalism
3.5 Decreasing conflict between the maximalist and minimalist schools
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References
7 External links
Materials and methods[edit]
Manuscripts and canons[edit]
The Bible exists in multiple manuscripts, none of them autographs, and multiple canons, none of which completely agree on which books have sufficient authority to be included or their order (see Books of the Bible).
To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics scrutinize the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the volume of the earliest texts (and their parallels to each other), the greater the textual reliability and the less chance that the transcript's content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others. Differences often extend beyond minor variations and may involve, for instance, interpolation of material central to issues of historicity and doctrine, such as the ending of Mark 16.
The books comprising the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament (the two are almost, but not exactly, the same) were written largely in Biblical Hebrew, with a few exceptions in Biblical Aramaic. Today it exists in several traditions, including the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint 47 books (a Greek translation widely used in the period from the 3rd century BCE to roughly the 5th century CE, and still regarded as authoritative by the Orthodox Christian churches), the Samaritan Torah, the Westminster containing the modern 39 books, and others. Variations between these traditions are useful for reconstructing the most likely original text, and for tracing the intellectual histories of various Jewish and Christian communities. The very oldest fragment resembling part of the text of the Hebrew Bible so far discovered is a small silver amulet, dating from approximately 600 BCE, and containing a version of the Priestly Blessing ("May God make his face to shine upon you...").
According to the dominant theory called Greek primacy, the New Testament was originally written in Greek, of which 5,650 handwritten copies have survived in Greek, over 10,000 in Latin. When other languages are included, the total of ancient copies approaches 25,000. The next ancient text to come close to rivaling that number is Homer's Iliad, which is thought to have survived in 643 ancient copies.[9] Recognizing this, F. E. Peters remarked that "on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that make up the Christians' New Testament texts were the most frequently copied and widely circulated [surviving] books of antiquity".[citation needed] (This may be due to their preservation, popularity, and distribution brought about by the ease of seaborne travel and the many roads constructed during the time of the Roman Empire). When a comparison is made between the seven major critical editions of the Greek NT verse-by-verse – namely Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, Von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, and Nestle-Aland – 62.9% of verses are variant free.[10]
A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was first asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180.[11] The many other gospels that then existed were eventually deemed non-canonical (see Biblical canon) and suppressed. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[12] and he used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[13] The Council of Rome in 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus I issued an identical canon,[12] and his decision to commission the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[14] See Development of the New Testament canon for details.
Texts[edit]
Hebrew Bible[edit]
The Hebrew Bible is not a single book but rather a collection of texts, most of them anonymous, and most of them the product of more or less extensive editing prior to reaching their modern form. These texts are in many different genres, but three distinct blocks approximating modern narrative history can be made out.
Torah: Genesis to Deuteronomy
God creates the world; the world God creates is good, but it becomes thoroughly corrupted by man's decision to sin. God destroys all but the eight remaining righteous people in a deluge and shortens man's lifespan significantly. God selects Abraham to inherit the land of Canaan. The children of Israel, Abraham's grandson, go into Egypt, where their descendants are enslaved. The Israelites are led out of Egypt by Moses (Exodus) and receive the laws of God, who renews the promise of the land of Canaan.
Deuteronomic history: Joshua to 2 Kings
The Israelites conquer the land of Canaan under Joshua, successor to Moses. Under the Judges they live in a state of constant conflict and insecurity, until the prophet Samuel anoints Saul as king over them. Saul proves unworthy, and God selects David as his successor. Under David the Israelites are united and conquer their enemies, and under Solomon his son they live in peace and prosperity. But the kingdom is divided under Solomon's successors, Israel in the north and Judah in the south, and the kings of Israel fall away from God and eventually the people of the north are taken into captivity by outsiders. Judah, unlike Israel, has some kings who follow God, but many do not, and eventually it too is taken into captivity, and the Temple of God built by Solomon is destroyed.
Chronicler's history: Chronicles and Ezra/Nehemiah
(Chronicles begins by reprising the history of the Torah and the Deuteronomistic history, with some differences over details. It introduces new material following its account of the fall of Jerusalem, the event which concludes the Deuteronomic history). The Babylonians, who had destroyed the Temple and taken the people into captivity, are themselves defeated by the Persians under their king Cyrus. Cyrus permits the exiles to return to Jerusalem. The Temple is rebuilt, and the Laws of Moses are read to the people.
Other
(Several other books of the Hebrew Bible are set in a historical context or otherwise give information which can be regarded as historical, although these books do not present themselves as histories).
The prophets Amos and Hosea write of events during the 8th century kingdom of Israel; the prophet Jeremiah writes of events preceding and following the fall of Judah; Ezekiel writes of events during and preceding the exile in Babylon; and other prophets similarly touch on various periods, usually those in which they write.
Several books are included in some canons but not in others. Among these, Maccabees is a purely historical work of events in the 2nd century BCE. Others are not historical in orientation but are set in historical contexts or reprise earlier histories, such as Enoch, an apocalyptic work of the 2nd century BCE.
New Testament[edit]
While the authorship of some of the Pauline epistles is largely undisputed, there is no scholarly consensus on the authors of the other books of the New Testament, which most modern scholars acknowledge as pseudonymous autographs[15][16] written more than a generation after the events they describe.
Gospels/Acts
Jesus is born to Joseph and Mary; he is baptised by John the Baptist and begins a preaching and healing mission in Galilee; he comes up to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, is arrested, tried, condemned, and crucified. He is raised from the dead by God, appears before his followers, issuing the Great Commission, and ascends to Heaven, to sit at the Right Hand of God, with a promise to return. The followers of Jesus, who had been fearful following the Crucifixion, are encouraged by Jesus' resurrection and continue to practice and to preach his teachings. The Apostle Paul preaches throughout the eastern Mediterranean, is arrested, and appeals. He is sent to Rome for trial, and the narrative breaks off.
Epistles/Revelation
The epistles (literally "letters") are largely concerned with theology, but the theological arguments they present form a "history of theology". Revelation deals with the last judgement and the end of the world.
Extra-biblical sources[edit]
Prior to the 19th century, textual analysis of the Bible itself was the only tool available to extract and evaluate whatever historical data it contained. The past two hundred years, however, have seen a proliferation of new sources of data and analytical tools, including:
Other Near Eastern texts, documents and inscriptions[17]
The material remains recovered throughout the Near East by archaeological excavation, analysed by ever more sophisticated technical and statistical apparatus[18]
Historical geography, demography, soil science, technology studies, and comparative linguistics[19]
Anthropological and sociological modelling
The Apocrypha, or non-canonical texts
Writing and reading history[edit]
W.F. Albright, the doyen of biblical archaeology, in 1957
The meaning of the term "history" is itself dependent on social and historical context. Paula McNutt, for instance, notes that the Old Testament narratives "do not record 'history' in the sense that history is understood in the twentieth century ... The past, for biblical writers as well as for twentieth-century readers of the Bible, has meaning only when it is considered in light of the present, and perhaps an idealized future." (p. 4, emphasis added)[20]
Biblical history has also diversified its focus during the modern era. The project of biblical archaeology associated with W.F. Albright, which sought to validate the historicity of the events narrated in the Bible through the ancient texts and material remains of the Near East,[21] has a more specific focus compared to the more expansive view of history described by archaeologist William Dever. In discussing the role of his discipline in interpreting the biblical record, Dever has pointed to multiple histories within the Bible, including the history of theology (the relationship between God and believers), political history (usually the account of "Great Men"), narrative history (the chronology of events), intellectual history (ideas and their development, context and evolution), socio-cultural history (institutions, including their social underpinnings in family, clan, tribe and social class and the state), cultural history (overall cultural evolution, demography, socio-economic and political structure and ethnicity), technological history (the techniques by which humans adapt to, exploit and make use of the resources of their environment), natural history (how humans discover and adapt to the ecological facts of their natural environment), and material history (artefacts as correlates of changes in human behaviour).[22]
A special challenge for assessing the historicity of the Bible is sharply differing perspectives on the relationship between narrative history and theological meaning. Supporters of biblical literalism "deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood."[23] But prominent scholars have expressed diametrically opposing views: "[T]he stories about the promise given to the patriarchs in Genesis are not historical, nor do they intend to be historical; they are rather historically determined expressions about Israel and Israel's relationship to its God, given in forms legitimate to their time, and their truth lies not in their facticity, nor in the historicity, but their ability to express the reality that Israel experienced."[24]
Challenges to historicity[edit]
The Hebrew Bible[edit]
Genesis: Literal vs. Symbolic Interpretation[edit]
The Garden of Eden: from history to mythology. By Lucas Cranach der Ältere(1472–1553)
There had always been a critical tradition dating back to at least St Augustine of Hippo (354–430), with interpretations "plainly at variance with what are commonly perceived in evangelicalism as traditional views of Genesis."[25] The Jewish tradition has also maintained a critical thread in its approach to biblical primeval history. The influential medieval philosopher Maimonides maintained a skeptical ambiguity towards creation ex nihilo and considered the stories about Adam more as "philosophical anthropology, rather than as historical stories whose protagonist is the 'first man'."[26] Greek philosophers Aristotle,[27] Critolaus[28] and Proclus[29] held that the world was eternal.
The birth of geology was marked by the publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earth in 1788. This marked the intellectual revolution that would dethrone Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and prehistory. The first casualty was the Creation story itself, and by the early 19th century "no responsible scientist contended for the literal credibility of the Mosaic account of creation." (p. 224)[30] The battle between uniformitarianism and catastrophism kept the Flood alive in the emerging discipline, until Adam Sedgwick, the president of the Geological Society, publicly recanted his previous support in his 1831 presidential address:
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[31]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, and remains, uneven but the mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than history.[32]
Authorship of the Torah[edit]
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, (which is the only proof of matter of fact)."[33]
Title page of Simon's Critical history, 1682.
The Jewish philosopher and pantheist Baruch Spinoza echoed Hobbes's doubts about the provenance of the historical books in his A Theologico-Political Treatise (published in 1670),[34] and elaborated on the suggestion that the final redaction of these texts was post-exilic under the auspices of Ezra (Chapter IX). He had earlier been effectively excommunicated by the rabbinical council of Amsterdam for his perceived heresies. The French priest Richard Simon brought these critical perspectives to the Catholic tradition in 1678, observing "the most part of the Holy Scriptures that are come to us, are but Abridgments and as Summaries of ancient Acts which were kept in the Registries of the Hebrews," in what was probably the first work of biblical textual criticism in the modern sense.[35]
In response Jean Astruc, applying source criticism methods common in the analysis of classical secular texts to the Pentateuch, believed he could detect four different manuscript traditions, which he claimed Moses himself had redacted. (p. 62–64)[32] His 1753 book initiated the school known as higher criticism that culminated in Julius Wellhausen formalising the documentary hypothesis in the 1870s,[36] which in various modified forms still dominates understanding of the composition of the historical narratives.
By the end of the 19th century the scholarly consensus was that the Pentateuch was the work of many authors writing from 1000 BCE (the time of David) to 500 BCE (the time of Ezra) and redacted c.450, and as a consequence whatever history it contained was more often polemical than strictly factual – a conclusion reinforced by the then fresh scientific refutations of what were at the time widely classed as biblical mythologies, as discussed above.
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[37]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[38]
Historicity of events in Ancient Israel and Judah[edit]
Further information: Archeology of Israel
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counter-attacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[39] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[40]
The scholarly history of the Deuteronomic history parallels that of the Pentateuch: the European tradition history school argued that the narrative was untrustworthy and could not be used to construct a narrative history; the American Albright school asserted that it could when tested against the archaeological record; and modern archaeological techniques proved crucial in deciding the issue. The test case was the book of Joshua and its account of a rapid, destructive conquest of the Canaanite cities: but by the 1960s it had become clear that the archaeological record did not, in fact, support the account of the conquest given in Joshua: the cities which the Bible records as having been destroyed by the Israelites were either uninhabited at the time, or, if destroyed, were destroyed at widely different times, not in one brief period.[citation needed] The most high-profile example was the "fall of Jericho."
John Garstang, who excavated in the 1930s, announced that he had found fallen walls dating to the time of the biblical Battle of Jericho.[41] However, Garstang later revised the destruction to a much earlier period.[41] Kathleen Kenyon dated the destruction of the walled city to the middle of the 16th century (c. 1550 BC), too early to match the usual dating of the Exodus to Pharaoh Ramses, on the basis of her excavations in the early 1950s.[42] The same conclusion, based on an analysis of all the excavation findings, was reached by Piotr Bienkowski.[43]
Thomas L. Thompson, a leading minimalist scholar for example has written
"There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough."
These views are contentious with regard to modern evidence.[citation needed]
Proponents of this theory also point to the fact that the division of the land into two entities, centered at Jerusalem and Shechem, goes back to the Egyptian rule of Israel in the New Kingdom. Solomon's empire is said to have stretched from the Euphrates in the north to the Red Sea in the south; it would have required a large commitment of men and arms and a high level of organization to conquer, subdue, and govern this area. But there is little archaeological evidence of Jerusalem being a sufficiently large city in the 10th century BCE, and Judah seems to be sparsely settled in that time period. Since Jerusalem has been destroyed and then subsequently rebuilt approximately 15 to 20 times since the time of David and Solomon, some argue much of the evidence could easily have been eliminated.
None of the conquests of David nor Solomon are mentioned in contemporary histories. Culturally, the Bronze Age collapse is otherwise a period of general cultural impoverishment of the whole Levantine region, making it difficult to consider the existence of any large territorial unit such as the Davidic kingdom, whose cultural features rather seem to resemble the later kingdom of Hezekiah or Josiah than the political and economic conditions of the 11th century. The biblical account makes no claim that Israel directly governed the areas included in their empires which are portrayed instead as tributaries.[citation needed] However, since the discovery of an inscription dating to the 9th or 8th century BCE on the Tel Dan Stele unearthed in the north of Israel, which may refer to the "house of David" as a monarchic dynast,[44] the debate has continued.[45] This is still disputed. There is a debate as to whether the united monarchy, the empire of King Solomon, and the rebellion of Jeroboam ever existed, or whether they are a late fabrication. The Mesha Stele, dated to c. 840 BCE, translated by most scholars as a reference to the House of David, and mentions events and names found in Kings.[46]
There is a problem with the sources for this period of history (the United Monarchy). There are no contemporary independent documents other than the accounts of the Books of Samuel, which exhibits too many anachronisms to have been a contemporary account. For example there is mention of later armor (1 Samuel 17:4–7, 38–39; 25:13), use of camels (1 Samuel 30:17), and cavalry (as distinct from chariotry) (1 Samuel 13:5, 2 Samuel 1:6), iron picks and axes (as though they were common, (2 Samuel 12:31), sophisticated siege techniques (2 Samuel 20:15). There is a gargantuan troop (2 Samuel 17:1), a battle with 20,000 casualties (2 Samuel 18:7), and a reference to Kushite paramilitary and servants, clearly giving evidence of a date in which Kushites were common, after the 26th Dynasty of Egypt, the period of the last quarter of the 8th century BCE.[47] The historicity of the Book of Samuel is dubious, and many scholars regard it as legendary in origin, particularly given the lack of evidence for the battles described involving the destruction of the Canaanite peoples (most scholars believe that the Israelites entered the land peacefully, as an offshoot from the Canaanites). The dramatization of real or legendary battles was common in the Ancient Near East, in this context it served to glorify Israel's national god.
New Testament[edit]
Historicity of Jesus[edit]
Main article: Historicity of Jesus
The historicity of some NT teachings of Jesus is also currently debated among biblical scholars. The "quest for the historical Jesus" began as early as the 18th century, and has continued to this day. The most notable recent scholarship came in the 1980s and 1990s with the work of J. D. Crossan,[48] James D. G. Dunn,[49] John P. Meier,[50] E. P. Sanders[51] and N. T. Wright[52] being the most widely read and discussed. The earliest New Testament texts which refer to Jesus, Paul's letters, are usually dated in the 50s CE. Since Paul records very little of Jesus' life and activities, these are of little help in determining facts about the life of Jesus, although they may contain references to information given to Paul from the eyewitnesses of Jesus.[53]
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shed light into the context of 1st century Judea, noting the diversity of Jewish belief as well as shared expectations and teachings. For example the expectation of the coming messiah, the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount and much else of the early Christian movement are found to have existed within apocalyptic Judaism of the period.[54] This has had the effect of centering Early Christianity much more within its Jewish roots than was previously the case. It is now recognised that Rabbinical Judaism and Early Christianity are only two of the many strands which survived until the Jewish revolt of 66 to 70 CE,[55][56] see also Split of early Christianity and Judaism.
Almost all historical critics agree that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection.[57]
The absence of evidence of Jesus' life before his meeting with John the Baptist has led to many speculations. It would seem that part of the explanation may lie in the early conflict between Paul and the Desposyni Ebionim, led by James the Just, supposedly the brother of Jesus, that led to Gospel passages critical of Jesus' family.[58]
Historicity of the Gospels[edit]
Main article: Historical reliability of the Gospels
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[16] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[59][60] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[61] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out, that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is, that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[62][63][64][65] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[66] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[67] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[68] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[67]
Historicity of the Acts[edit]
The historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, the primary source for the Apostolic Age, is a major issue for biblical scholars and historians of Early Christianity. Some scholars view the work as being inaccurate and in conflict with the Pauline epistles. Acts portrays Paul as more in line with Jewish Christianity, while the Pauline epistles record more conflict, such as the Incident at Antioch, see also Paul the Apostle and Judaism.
Schools of archaeological and historical thought[edit]
Overview of academic views[edit]
An educated reading of the biblical text requires knowledge of when it was written, by whom, and for what purpose. For example, many academics would agree that the Pentateuch was in existence some time shortly after the 6th century BCE, but they disagree about when it was written. Proposed dates vary from the 15th century BCE to the 6th century BCE. One popular hypothesis points to the reign of Josiah (7th century BCE). In this hypothesis, the events of, for example, Exodus would have happened centuries before they were finally edited. This topic is expanded upon in dating the Bible.
An important point to keep in mind is the documentary hypothesis, which using the biblical evidence itself, claims to demonstrate that our current version was based on older written sources that were lost. Although it has been modified heavily over the years, most scholars accept some form of this hypothesis. There have also been and are a number of scholars who reject it, for example Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen[69] and Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser, Jr.,[70] as well as the late R. N. Whybray, Umberto Cassuto, O. T. Allis and Gleason Archer.
Maximalist – Minimalist dichotomy[edit]
The major split of biblical scholarship into two opposing schools is strongly disapproved by non-fundamentalist biblical scholars, as being an attempt by conservative Christians to portray the field as a bipolar argument, of which only one side is correct.[71]
Recently the difference between the Maximalist and Minimalist has reduced, however a new school started with a work, "The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel" by Israel Finkelstein, Amihai Mazar, and Brian B. Schmidt.[72] This school argues that post-processual archaeology enables us to recognize the existence of a middle ground between Minimalism and Maximalism, and that both these extremes need to be rejected. Archaeology offers both confirmation of parts of the biblical record and also poses challenges to the interpretations made by some. The careful examination of the evidence demonstrates that the historical accuracy of the first part of the Old Testament is greatest during the reign of Josiah. Some feel that the accuracy diminishes, the further backwards one proceeds from this date. This they claim would confirm that a major redaction of the texts seems to have occurred at about that date.
Biblical minimalism[edit]
Main article: Biblical minimalism
The viewpoint sometimes called Biblical minimalism generally hold that the Bible is principally a theological and apologetic work, and all stories within it are of an aetiological character. The early stories are held to have a historical basis that was reconstructed centuries later, and the stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs mere legendary eponyms to describe later historical realities. Further, biblical minimalists hold that the twelve tribes of Israel were a later construction, the stories of King David and King Saul were modeled upon later Irano-Hellenistic examples, and that there is no archaeological evidence that the united kingdom of Israel, which the Bible says that David and Solomon ruled over an empire from the Euphrates to Eilath, ever existed.
"It is hard to pinpoint when the movement started but 1968 seems to be a reasonable date. During this year, two prize winning essays were written in Copenhagen; one by Niels Peter Lemche, the other by Heike Friis, which advocated a complete rethinking of the way we approach the Bible and attempt to draw historical conclusions from it"[73]
In published books, one of the early advocates of the current school of thought known as biblical minimalism is Giovanni Garbini, Storia e ideologia nell'Israele antico (1986), translated into English as History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (1988). In his footsteps followed Thomas L. Thompson with his lengthy Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources (1992) and, building explicitly on Thompson's book, P. R. Davies' shorter work, In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (1992). In the latter, Davies finds historical Israel only in archaeological remains, biblical Israel only in Scripture, and recent reconstructions of "ancient Israel" to be an unacceptable amalgam of the two. Thompson and Davies see the entire Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) as the imaginative creation of a small community of Jews at Jerusalem during the period which the Bible assigns to after the return from the Babylonian exile, from 539 BCE onward. Niels Peter Lemche, Thompson's fellow faculty member at the University of Copenhagen, also followed with several titles that show Thompson's influence, including The Israelites in history and tradition (1998). The presence of both Thompson and Lemche at the same institution has led to the use of the term "Copenhagen school". The effect of biblical minimalism from 1992 onward was debate with more than two points of view[74][75]
Biblical maximalism[edit]
There is no scholarly controversy on the historicity of the events recounted after the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BCE, but there is great controversy concerning earlier data. The positions of "maximalists" vs. "minimalists" refer primarily to the monarchy period, spanning the 10th to 7th centuries BCE. The maximalist position holds that the accounts of the United Monarchy and the early kings of Israel, king David and king Saul, are to be taken as largely historical.[76]
Decreasing conflict between the maximalist and minimalist schools[edit]
In 2001, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman published the book The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts which advocated a view midway toward biblical minimalism and caused an uproar among many conservatives. In the 25th anniversary issue of Biblical Archeological Review(March/April 2001 edition), editor Hershel Shanks quoted several biblical scholars who insisted that minimalism was dying,[77] although leading minimalists deny this and a claim has been made "We are all minimalists now".[78]
Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now.[3]
—Philip Davies, "Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?"
The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.
In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.
—Lester L. Grabbe, "Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel"
In 2003, Kenneth Kitchen, a scholar who adopts a more maximalist point of view, authored the book On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Kitchen advocated the reliability of many (though not all) parts of the Torah and in no uncertain terms criticizes the work of Finkelstein and Silberman, to which Finkelstein has since responded.
Jennifer Wallace describes archaeologist Israel Finkelstein's view in her article Shifting Ground in the Holy Land, appearing in Smithsonian Magazine, May 2006:
He [Finkelstein] cites the fact – now accepted by most archaeologists – that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century B.C. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, Ai was abandoned before 2000 B.C. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 B.C. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
However, despite problems with the archaeological record, some maximalists place Joshua in the mid second millennium, at about the time the Egyptian Empire came to rule over Canaan, and not the 13th century as Finkelstein or Kitchen claim, and view the destruction layers of the period as corroboration of the biblical account. The destruction of Hazor in the mid-13th century is seen as corroboration of the biblical account of the later destruction carried out by Deborah and Barak as recorded in the Book of Judges. The location that Finkelstein refers to as "Ai" is generally dismissed as the location of the biblical Ai, since it was destroyed and buried in the 3rd millennium. The prominent site has been known by that name since at least Hellenistic times, if not before. Minimalists all hold that dating these events as contemporary are etiological explanations written centuries after the events they claim to report.
For the united monarchy both Finkelstein and Silberman do accept that David and Solomon were really existing persons (no kings but bandit leaders or hill country chieftains)[79][80] from Judah about the 10th century BCE[81] - they do not assume that there was such a thing as united monarchy with a capital in Jerusalem.
The Bible reports that Jehoshaphat, a contemporary of Ahab, offered manpower and horses for the northern kingdom's wars against the Arameans. He strengthened his relationship with the northern kingdom by arranging a diplomatic marriage: the Israelite princess Athaliah, sister or daughter of King Ahab, married Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 8:18). The house of David in Jerusalem was now directly linked to (and apparently dominated by) the Israelite royalty of Samaria. In fact, we might suggest that this represented the north's takeover by marriage of Judah. Thus in the ninth century BCE—nearly a century after the presumed time of David—we can finally point to the historical existence of a great united monarchy of Israel, stretching from Dan in the north to Beer-sheba in the south, with significant conquered territories in Syria and Transjordan. But this united monarchy—a real united monarchy—was ruled by the Omrides, not the Davidides, and its capital was Samaria, not Jerusalem.[4]
—Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, David and Solomon. In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition.
Others such as David Ussishkin argue that those who follow the biblical depiction of a united monarchy do so on the basis of limited evidence while hoping to uncover real archaeological proof in the future.[82] Gunnar Lehmann suggests that there is still a possibility that David and Solomon were able to become local chieftains of some importance and claims that Jerusalem at the time was at best a small town in a sparsely populated area in which alliances of tribal kinship groups formed the basis of society. He goes on further to claim that it was at best a small regional centre, one of three to four in the territory of Judah and neither David nor Solomon had the manpower or the requisite social/political/administrative structure to rule the kind of empire described in the Bible.[83]
These views are strongly criticized by William G. Dever,[84] Helga Weippert, Amihai Mazar and Amnon Ben-Tor.
André Lemaire states in Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple[85] that the principal points of the biblical tradition with Solomon as generally trustworthy, as does Kenneth Kitchen, who argue that Solomon ruled over a comparatively wealthy "mini-empire", rather than a small city-state.
Recently Finkelstein has joined with the more conservative Amihai Mazar, to explore the areas of agreement and disagreement and there are signs the intensity of the debate between the so-called minimalist and maximalist scholars is diminishing.[72] This view is also taken by Richard S. Hess,[86] which shows there is in fact a plurality of views between maximalists and minimalists. Jack Cargill[87] has shown that popular textbooks not only fail to give readers the up to date archaeological evidence, but that they also fail to correctly represent the diversity of views present on the subject. And Megan Bishop Moore and Brad E. Kelle provide an overview of the respective evolving approaches and attendant controversies, especially during the period from the mid-1980s through 2011, in their book Biblical History and Israel's Past.
See also[edit]
Abraham#Historicity and origins
Authorship of the Bible
Biblical archaeology school
Biblical criticism
Biblical inerrancy
Biblical literalism
Book of Daniel#Composition
Book of Esther#Historicity
Book of Joshua#Genre (historicity)
Rudolf Bultmann
Census of Quirinius
Chronology of Jesus
Crucifixion darkness
Dating the Bible
David#Historicity
Development of the New Testament canon
Documentary hypothesis
The Exodus#Historicity
Ezra#Academic view
Flood geology
Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles
Historicity of Jesus
Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)#History
List of artifacts in biblical archaeology
Massacre of the Innocents#Historicity
Moses#Historicity
Sanhedrin trial of Jesus
Science and the Bible
Theudas
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Thompson 2014, p. 164.
2.Jump up ^ Peter Enns, 3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship, January 10, 2013. Quote: "Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it."
3.^ Jump up to: a b Philip Davies "Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?"
4.^ Jump up to: a b Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2006). "3. Murder, Lust, and Betrayal". David and Solomon. In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. New York: Free Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-0-7432-4363-6. Retrieved December 24, 2010.
5.Jump up ^ "The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape." —Philip Davies, Minimalism, "Ancient Israel," and Anti-Semitism
6.Jump up ^ "He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging." —Jennifer Wallace, "Shifting Ground in the Holy Land", Smithsonian Magazine, May 2006
7.Jump up ^ "So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another." —Jonathan Michael Golden, Ancient Canaan and Israel: new perspectives, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 275
8.Jump up ^ Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel, Proceedings of the British Academy, October 2007
9.Jump up ^ Komoszewski, J. Ed; Wallace, Daniel J. (2006). Reinventing Jesus: What the Da Vinci Code and Other Novel Speculations Don't Tell You. Grand Rapids, Mich: Kregel Publications. p. 70. ISBN 0-8254-2982-X.
10.Jump up ^ Aland, Barbara; Aland, Kurt (1995). The text of the New Testament: an introduction to the critical editions and to the theory and practice of modern textual criticism. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 29. ISBN 0-8028-4098-1.
11.Jump up ^ Ferguson, Everett (2002). "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon". In Sanders, James; McDonald, Lee Martin. The Canon Debate. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers. p. 301. ISBN 1-56563-517-5.
12.^ Jump up to: a b Lindberg, Carter (2006). A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing. p. 15. ISBN 1-4051-1078-3.
13.Jump up ^ Brakke, David (1994). "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty Ninth Festal Letter". Harvard Theological Review 87: 395–419.
14.Jump up ^ Bruce, F. F. (1988). The canon of scripture. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press. p. 225. ISBN 0-8308-1258-X.
15.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart (2011). "Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are", Harper One, ISBN 0062012614
16.^ Jump up to: a b Mack, Burton (1996), "Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth", Harper One, ISBN 0060655186
17.Jump up ^ The most recent and most complete anthology of ancient Near Eastern texts, all translated into English, is The Context of Scripture (3 vols.; ed. William W. Hallo. assoc. ed. K. Lawson Younger, Jr.; Leiden: Brill, 1997-2002). Its worthy predecessor, which is still useful but lacks many texts discovered since the mid-20th century, is Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ed. James B. Pritchard; 3rd ed. with supplement; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969). The two preeminent anthologies of inscriptions of ancient Israel and its immediate neighbors such as Aram (ancient Syria), Ammon, Edom, Moab, Phoenicia, and Philistia (not Egypt or Mesopotamia) are: 1) Shmuel Ahituv, ed., Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period (Jerusalem: Carta, 2008) and 2) Nahman Avigad and Benjamin Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997). This last book has been criticized for mixing seals and seal impressions of known authenticity with unreliable seals and seal impressions of unknown origin, which could be forgeries. In general, if a known place of excavation by an archaeological team is mentioned, the discoveries should be considered reliable; otherwise not.
18.Jump up ^ The most extensive summary, site by site, is The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (4 vols. plus supplementary vol. 5; ed. Ephraim Stern; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993-2008). A two-volume series which gives period-by-period coverage of archaeological discoveries and their significance is 1) Amihay Mazar, Archaeological of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. (New York: Doubleday, 1990) and 2) Ephraim Stern, Archaeological of the Land of the Bible, Volume II: the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732-332 B.C.E. (New York: Doubleday, 2001)
19.Jump up ^ In historical geography, the preeminent book in English is Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006).
20.Jump up ^ McNutt, Paula M. (1999). Reconstructing the society of ancient Israel. London: SPCK. ISBN 0-281-05259-X.
21.Jump up ^ Albright, William Foxwell (1985). Archaeology of Palestine. Peter Smith Pub Inc. p. 128. ISBN 0-8446-0003-2. "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details of the Bible as a source of history."
22.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (2008), "Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel" (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)
23.Jump up ^ Henry, Carl Ferdinand Howard (1999) [1979]. "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy". God, Revelation and Authority 4. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books. pp. 211–219. ISBN 1-58134-056-7.
24.Jump up ^ Thompson, Thomas (2002) [1974]. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham. Valley Forge, Pa: Trinity Press International. ISBN 1-56338-389-6.
25.Jump up ^ Young, Davis A (March 1988). "The contemporary relevance of Augustine's view of Creation". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40 (1): 42–45. "But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions"
26.Jump up ^ Klein-Braslavy, Sara (1986). "The Creation of the world and Maimonides' interpretation of Gen. i–v". In Pines, S.; Yovel, Y. Maimonides and Philosophy (International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives internationales d'histoire des idées). Berlin: Springer. pp. 65–78. ISBN 90-247-3439-8.
27.Jump up ^ Physics I, 7
28.Jump up ^ Tiziano Dorandi, Chapter 2: Chronology, in Algra et al. (1999) The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, page 50. Cambridge
29.Jump up ^ Lang, Helen, "Introduction", p.2 in Proclus (2001). On the Eternity of the World. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-22554-6.
30.Jump up ^ Gillispie, Charles Coulston (1996) [1951]. Genesis and geology: a study in the relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in Great Britain, 1790–1850. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-34481-2.
31.Jump up ^ Quoted in Gillispie, Charles Coulston (1996) [1951]. Genesis and geology: a study in the relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in Great Britain, 1790–1850. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp. 142–143. ISBN 0-674-34481-2.
32.^ Jump up to: a b Wenham, Gordon J. (2003). "Genesis 1–11". Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-2551-7.
33.Jump up ^ Hobbes, Thomas (1651). "Chapter XXXIII. Of the number, antiquity, scope, authority and interpreters of the books of Holy Scripture". Leviathan. Green Dragon in St. Paul's Churchyard: Andrew Crooke.
34.Jump up ^ Spinoza, Baruch (1670). "Chapter VIII. Of the authorship of the Pentateuch and the other historical books of the Old Testament". A Theologico-Political Treatise (Part II).
35.Jump up ^ Simon, Richard (1682). A critical history of the Old Testament (PDF). London: Walter Davis. p. 21.
36.Jump up ^ Wellhausen, Julius (1885). Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black.
37.Jump up ^ Gunkel, Hermann (1997) [1901]. Biddle, Mark E. tr, ed. Genesis. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. p. lxviii. ISBN 0-86554-517-0.
38.Jump up ^ "[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable." Thompson, op cit, p. 328
39.Jump up ^ Mazar, Amihay (1992). Archaeology of the land of the Bible, 10,000-586 BCE. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-42590-2.
40.Jump up ^ Dever, William (March 1993). "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?". The Biblical Archaeologist (The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 56, No. 1) 56 (1): 25–35. doi:10.2307/3210358. JSTOR 3210358.
41.^ Jump up to: a b Thomas A. Holland (1997). "Jericho". In Eric M. Meyers. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Oxford University Press. pp. 220–224.
42.Jump up ^ Kathleen M. Kenyon (1957). Digging up Jericho: The Results of the Jericho Excavations, 1952-1956. New York: Praeger. p. 229.
43.Jump up ^ Piotr Bienkowski (1986). Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Warminster. pp. 120–125.
44.Jump up ^ Schniedewind WM (1996). "Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu's Revolt". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 302: 75–90. doi:10.2307/1357129. JSTOR 1357129.
45.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (2002), What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ISBN 080282126X
46.Jump up ^ LeMaire, André. "House of David Restored in Moabite Inscription", Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1994.
47.Jump up ^ Redford, Donald B. (1992). Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in ancient times. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. p. 305. ISBN 0-691-00086-7.
48.Jump up ^ Crossan, J. D. "The Historical Jesus: A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant," HarperOne, 1993, ISBN 0060616296
49.Jump up ^ James D. G. Dunn, "Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1, Eerdmans, 2003"
50.Jump up ^ John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 vols., the most recent volume from Yale University Press, 2001"
51.Jump up ^ Sanders, E.P. "The Historical Figure of Jesus," Penguin, 1996, ISBN 0141928220
52.Jump up ^ Wright, N.T. "Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God", Vol. 2, Augsburg Fortress Press, 1997, ISBN 0800626826
53.Jump up ^ John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew Volume I, Doubleday, 1991.
54.Jump up ^ The Dead Sea scrolls and Christian origins, Joseph Fitzmyer, pp. 28ff
55.Jump up ^ Bernstein, Richard (April 1, 1998). "BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Looking for Jesus and Jews in the Dead Sea Scrolls". The New York Times. Retrieved May 25, 2010.
56.Jump up ^ Shanks, Hershel "Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader From the Biblical Archaeology Review", archive.org
57.Jump up ^ Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew, Vol. II, Doubleday, 1994, ISBN 0300140339
58.Jump up ^ EBIONISM; EBIONITES in the Bible Encyclopedia - ISBE (Bible History Online). Bible-history.com. Retrieved on 2012-09-11.
59.Jump up ^ Bauckham, Richard "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006, ISBN 0802831621
60.Jump up ^ Byrskog, Samuel "Story as History, History as Story," Mohr Siebeck, 2000, ISBN 3161473051
61.Jump up ^ Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, March 28, 2006
62.Jump up ^ Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, Danske selskab, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1998.
63.Jump up ^ Nineham, Dennis, Saint Mark, Westminster Press, 1978, ISBN 0664213448, p 193
64.Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman, The New Testament. A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, p. 74 ISBN 0195154622
65.Jump up ^ McDonald, Lee Martin and Porter, Stanley. Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature, Hendrickson Publishers, 2000, p. 286 ISBN 1565632664
66.Jump up ^ Strobel, Lee. ”The Case for Christ”. 1998. Chapter one, an interview with Blomberg, ISBN 0310209307
67.^ Jump up to: a b Text-critical methodology and the pre-Caesarean text: Codex W in the Gospel, Larry W. Hurtado, p. 25
68.Jump up ^ "biblical literature." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 02 Nov. 2010 .
69.Jump up ^ Kitchen, K. A. (2003). On the reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans. ISBN 0-8028-4960-1.
70.Jump up ^ "Exploding the J.E.D.P. Theory - The Documentary Hypothesis". jashow.org.
71.Jump up ^ Spong, John Shelby (1992) "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" (Harper)
72.^ Jump up to: a b Finkelstein, Israel; Mazar, Amihai and Schmidt, Brian (2007). The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel. Society of Biblical Lit. ISBN 978-1-58983-277-0.
73.Jump up ^ George Athas, 'Minimalism': The Copenhagen School of Thought in Biblical Studies, edited transcript of lecture, 3rd ed., University of Sydney, April 29, 1999.
74.Jump up ^ Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2010). "Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992–2008, Part 1: Introducing a Bibliographic Essay in Five Parts". Journal of Religious and Theological Information 9 (3–4): 76. doi:10.1080/10477845.2010.526920.
75.Jump up ^ Brettler, Marc Z. (2003). "The Copenhagen School: The Historiographical Issues". AJS Review 27: 1–21. doi:10.1017/S0364009403000011. JSTOR 4131767. Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2012). "Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992–2008 and Beyond, Part 2.1: The Literature of Perspective, Critique, and Methodology, First Half". Journal of Religious and Theological Information 11 (3–4): 101–137, in which the relevant section is "Toward a Balanced View of Minimalism: A Summary of Published Critiques"; the Official version of record is available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10477845.2012.673111?journalCode=wrti20#.UjVAiNI6Pgc . Author's Accepted Draft if freely available at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_fsdocs/52/.
76.Jump up ^ "Maximalists and Minimalists", Livius.org.
77.Jump up ^ Jack Cargill Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks. Quoting Amy Dockster Marcus about the minimalists: "The bottom line is that when it comes to the big picture, they are often right. Many of their ideas, once considered far-fetched, are now solidly mainstream concepts."
78.Jump up ^ American Journal of Theology & Philosophy Vol. 14, No.1 January, 1993
79.Jump up ^ David and Solomon Beschrijving. Bol.com
80.Jump up ^ Richard N. Ostling Was King David legend or fiction? The Associated Press
81.Jump up ^ David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition pp20
82.Jump up ^ Ussishkin, David, "Solomon's Jerusalem: The Texts and the Facts on the Ground" in Vaughn Andrew G. and Killebrew, Ann E. eds. (2003), "Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period" (SBL Symposium Series 18; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature)
83.Jump up ^ Lehrmann, Gunnar, "The United Monarchy in the Countryside: Jerusalem, Judah, and the Shephelah during the Tenth Century BCE", in Vaughn Andrew G. and Killebrew, Ann E. eds. (2003), "Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period" (SBL Symposium Series 18; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature)
84.Jump up ^ Dever 2001, p. 160
85.Jump up ^ Shanks, Hershel (1999). Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, Pearson, p. 113 ISBN 0130853631
86.Jump up ^ Hess, Richard S. (2007) "Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey", Baker Academic, ISBN 0801027179
87.Jump up ^ "Jack Cargill - Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks - The History Teacher, 34.3". Retrieved 5 October 2014.
References[edit]
Banks, Diane (2006). Writing The History Of Israel. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Brettler, Mark Zvi (2005). How to Read the Bible. Jewish Publication Society.
Davies, Philip R. (1995). In Search of 'Ancient Israel'. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Davies, Philip R. (n.d.). Minimalism, 'Ancient Israel', and Anti-Semitism. The Bible and Interpretation.
Davies, Philip R., Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures, 1998.
Davies, Philip R. (2008). Memories of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press.
Dever, William G. (2012). The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel. Eerdmans.
Finkelstein, Israel; Mazar, Amihay; Schmidt, Brian B. (2007). The Quest for the Historical Israel. Society of Biblical Literature.
Finkelstein, Israel, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, 1988
Garbini, Giovanni, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel, 1988 (trans from Italian).
Halpern, Baruch, "Erasing History: The Minimalist Assault on Ancient Israel", Bible Review, December 1995, p26 - 35, 47.
Lemche, Niels Peter, Early Israel, 1985.
Lemche, Niels Peter (1998). The Israelites in History and Tradition. Westminster John Knox Press.
Moore, Megan Bishop; Kelle, Brad E. (2011). Biblical History and Israel's Past. Eerdmans.
Provan, Iain W., "Ideologies, Literary and Critical Reflections on Recent Writing on the History of Israel", Journal of Biblical Literature 114/4 (1995), p585-606. (a critique of the Copenhagen School of Thought - with responses by Davies (above) and Thompson (below))
Thompson, Thomas L. (1992). Early History of the Israelite People. Brill.
Thompson, Thomas L., "A Neo-Albrightean School in History and Biblical Scholarship?" Journal of Biblical Literature 114/4 (1995), p683-698. (a response to the article by Iain W. Provan - above)
Thompson, Thomas L. (1999). The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel. Basic Book.
Thompson, Thomas L. (n.d.). A view from Copenhagen: Israel and the History of Palestine. The Bible and Interpretation.
Van Seters, John, Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975.
Whitelam, Keith W. (1996). The Invention of Ancient Israel. Routledge.
Barenboim, Peter. "Biblical Roots of Separation of Powers", Moscow : Letny Sad, 2005, ISBN 5-94381-123-0, http://lccn.loc.gov/2006400578
Biran, Avraham. "'David' Found at Dan." Biblical Archaeology Review 20:2 (1994): 26–39.
Brettler, Marc Z., “The Copenhagen School: The Historiographical Issues,” AJS Review 27 (2003): 1–21.
Coogan, Michael D. "Canaanites: Who Were They and Where Did They Live?" Bible Review 9:3 (1993): 44ff.
Davies, Philip R. 1992, 2nd edition 1995, reprinted 2004.In Search of 'Ancient Israel' . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Dawood, N.J. 1978. Tales from the Arabian Nights, Doubleday, A delightful children's version translated from the original Arabic.
Dever, William G. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2001
Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil A. 2001 The Bible Unearthed. New York: Simon and Schuster
Garbini, Giovanni. 1988. History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. Translated by John Bowden from the original Italian edition. New York: Crossroad.
Harpur, Tom. 2004. "The Pagan Christ. Recovering the Lost Light" Thomas Allen Publishers, Toronto.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. 2003 On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Koehler; Dr. Ralph D. Christian Bible History. ISBN 1-4208-1242-4.
Larsson, G. 2007. "The Chronological System of the Old Testament". Peter Lang GmbH.
Lemche, Niels P. 1998. The Israelites in History and Tradition London : SPCK ; Louisville, Ky. : Westminster John Knox Press.
Mazar, Amihai. 1992. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000–586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday.
Miller, J. Maxwell, and John Haralson Hayes, "A history of ancient Israel and Judah" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1986)
Moore, Megan Bishop and Brad E. Kelle, Biblical History and Israel's Past, 2011.
Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975.
Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. 2010. "Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992–2008, Part 1: Introducing a Bibliographic Essay in Five Parts,” Journal of Religious and Theological Information 9/3–4: 71-83.
Na'aman, Nadav. 1996 ."The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem's Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E." BASOR. 304: 17–27.
Na'aman, Nadav. 1997 "Cow Town or Royal Capital: Evidence for Iron Age Jerusalem." Biblical Archaeology Review. 23, no. 4: 43–47, 67.
Noth, Martin, "Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien", 1943; English translation as "The Deuteronomistic History", Sheffield, 1981, and "The Chronicler's History", Sheffield, 1987.
Shanks, Hershel. 1995. Jerusalem: An Archaeological Biography. New York: Random House.
Shanks, Hershel. 1997 "Face to Face: Biblical Minimalists Meet Their Challengers." Biblical Archaeology Review. 23, no. 4: 26–42, 66.
Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God, Eerdmans, 2002 (1st edition 1990)
Steiner, Margareet and Jane Cahill. "David's Jerusalem: Fiction or Reality?" Biblical Archaeology Review 24:4 (1998): 25–33, 62–63; 34–41, 63. This article presents a debate between a Biblical minimalist and a Biblical maximalist.
Thompson, Thomas L. (2014). Biblical Narrative and Palestine's History: Changing Perspectives 2. Routledge.
________. The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past. London.
________. 1992. The Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources. Leiden and New York: Brill.
Yamauchi, Edwin, The Stones and the Scriptures. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1972.
External links[edit]
'Minimalism' – The Copenhagen School of Thought in Biblical Studies
Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable by Gary Habermas
Biblical Archaeology Society: examines discoveries and controversies about historical veracity of the Bible
Livius.org: Maximalism and minimalism
Notes on minimalism by George Athas
[hide]
v ·
t ·
e
The Bible and history
General studies
Biblical criticism ·
Biblical studies ·
History of ancient Israel and Judah ·
The Bible and history ·
Quest for the historical Jesus ·
Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg
Historicity
Biblical archaeology ·
Historicity of Jesus ·
Historicity of the Bible ·
Historical reliability of the Gospels ·
List of artifacts in biblical archaeology ·
List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources ·
List of burial places of biblical figures ·
List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts ·
List of New Testament papyri ·
List of New Testament uncials ·
Historical Jesus
Criticism
Criticism of the Bible ·
Christ myth theory
Bible Portal
Categories: Ancient Jewish history
Biblical criticism
Historicity of religion
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Čeština
Español
Italiano
Português
Slovenčina
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
Edit links
This page was last modified on 9 June 2015, at 05:11.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
Historicity of the Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from History and the Bible)
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on the
Bible
The Malmesbury Bible
Canons and books
[show]
Authorship and development
[show]
Translations and manuscripts
[show]
Biblical studies[show]
Interpretation[show]
Perspectives[show]
Wikipedia book Bible book Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
t ·
e
The historicity of the Bible is the question of its "acceptability as a history," in the phrase of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study compare the Bible and history, ranging from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries in the nineteenth and twentieth century have supported some of the Old Testament's historical narratives and refuted some of the others.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
Contents [hide]
1 Materials and methods 1.1 Manuscripts and canons
1.2 Texts 1.2.1 Hebrew Bible
1.2.2 New Testament
1.3 Extra-biblical sources
1.4 Writing and reading history
2 Challenges to historicity 2.1 The Hebrew Bible 2.1.1 Genesis: Literal vs. Symbolic Interpretation
2.1.2 Authorship of the Torah
2.1.3 Historicity of events in Ancient Israel and Judah
2.2 New Testament 2.2.1 Historicity of Jesus
2.2.2 Historicity of the Gospels
2.2.3 Historicity of the Acts
3 Schools of archaeological and historical thought 3.1 Overview of academic views
3.2 Maximalist – Minimalist dichotomy
3.3 Biblical minimalism
3.4 Biblical maximalism
3.5 Decreasing conflict between the maximalist and minimalist schools
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References
7 External links
Materials and methods[edit]
Manuscripts and canons[edit]
The Bible exists in multiple manuscripts, none of them autographs, and multiple canons, none of which completely agree on which books have sufficient authority to be included or their order (see Books of the Bible).
To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics scrutinize the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the volume of the earliest texts (and their parallels to each other), the greater the textual reliability and the less chance that the transcript's content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others. Differences often extend beyond minor variations and may involve, for instance, interpolation of material central to issues of historicity and doctrine, such as the ending of Mark 16.
The books comprising the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament (the two are almost, but not exactly, the same) were written largely in Biblical Hebrew, with a few exceptions in Biblical Aramaic. Today it exists in several traditions, including the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint 47 books (a Greek translation widely used in the period from the 3rd century BCE to roughly the 5th century CE, and still regarded as authoritative by the Orthodox Christian churches), the Samaritan Torah, the Westminster containing the modern 39 books, and others. Variations between these traditions are useful for reconstructing the most likely original text, and for tracing the intellectual histories of various Jewish and Christian communities. The very oldest fragment resembling part of the text of the Hebrew Bible so far discovered is a small silver amulet, dating from approximately 600 BCE, and containing a version of the Priestly Blessing ("May God make his face to shine upon you...").
According to the dominant theory called Greek primacy, the New Testament was originally written in Greek, of which 5,650 handwritten copies have survived in Greek, over 10,000 in Latin. When other languages are included, the total of ancient copies approaches 25,000. The next ancient text to come close to rivaling that number is Homer's Iliad, which is thought to have survived in 643 ancient copies.[9] Recognizing this, F. E. Peters remarked that "on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that make up the Christians' New Testament texts were the most frequently copied and widely circulated [surviving] books of antiquity".[citation needed] (This may be due to their preservation, popularity, and distribution brought about by the ease of seaborne travel and the many roads constructed during the time of the Roman Empire). When a comparison is made between the seven major critical editions of the Greek NT verse-by-verse – namely Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, Von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, and Nestle-Aland – 62.9% of verses are variant free.[10]
A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was first asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180.[11] The many other gospels that then existed were eventually deemed non-canonical (see Biblical canon) and suppressed. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[12] and he used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[13] The Council of Rome in 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus I issued an identical canon,[12] and his decision to commission the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[14] See Development of the New Testament canon for details.
Texts[edit]
Hebrew Bible[edit]
The Hebrew Bible is not a single book but rather a collection of texts, most of them anonymous, and most of them the product of more or less extensive editing prior to reaching their modern form. These texts are in many different genres, but three distinct blocks approximating modern narrative history can be made out.
Torah: Genesis to Deuteronomy
God creates the world; the world God creates is good, but it becomes thoroughly corrupted by man's decision to sin. God destroys all but the eight remaining righteous people in a deluge and shortens man's lifespan significantly. God selects Abraham to inherit the land of Canaan. The children of Israel, Abraham's grandson, go into Egypt, where their descendants are enslaved. The Israelites are led out of Egypt by Moses (Exodus) and receive the laws of God, who renews the promise of the land of Canaan.
Deuteronomic history: Joshua to 2 Kings
The Israelites conquer the land of Canaan under Joshua, successor to Moses. Under the Judges they live in a state of constant conflict and insecurity, until the prophet Samuel anoints Saul as king over them. Saul proves unworthy, and God selects David as his successor. Under David the Israelites are united and conquer their enemies, and under Solomon his son they live in peace and prosperity. But the kingdom is divided under Solomon's successors, Israel in the north and Judah in the south, and the kings of Israel fall away from God and eventually the people of the north are taken into captivity by outsiders. Judah, unlike Israel, has some kings who follow God, but many do not, and eventually it too is taken into captivity, and the Temple of God built by Solomon is destroyed.
Chronicler's history: Chronicles and Ezra/Nehemiah
(Chronicles begins by reprising the history of the Torah and the Deuteronomistic history, with some differences over details. It introduces new material following its account of the fall of Jerusalem, the event which concludes the Deuteronomic history). The Babylonians, who had destroyed the Temple and taken the people into captivity, are themselves defeated by the Persians under their king Cyrus. Cyrus permits the exiles to return to Jerusalem. The Temple is rebuilt, and the Laws of Moses are read to the people.
Other
(Several other books of the Hebrew Bible are set in a historical context or otherwise give information which can be regarded as historical, although these books do not present themselves as histories).
The prophets Amos and Hosea write of events during the 8th century kingdom of Israel; the prophet Jeremiah writes of events preceding and following the fall of Judah; Ezekiel writes of events during and preceding the exile in Babylon; and other prophets similarly touch on various periods, usually those in which they write.
Several books are included in some canons but not in others. Among these, Maccabees is a purely historical work of events in the 2nd century BCE. Others are not historical in orientation but are set in historical contexts or reprise earlier histories, such as Enoch, an apocalyptic work of the 2nd century BCE.
New Testament[edit]
While the authorship of some of the Pauline epistles is largely undisputed, there is no scholarly consensus on the authors of the other books of the New Testament, which most modern scholars acknowledge as pseudonymous autographs[15][16] written more than a generation after the events they describe.
Gospels/Acts
Jesus is born to Joseph and Mary; he is baptised by John the Baptist and begins a preaching and healing mission in Galilee; he comes up to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, is arrested, tried, condemned, and crucified. He is raised from the dead by God, appears before his followers, issuing the Great Commission, and ascends to Heaven, to sit at the Right Hand of God, with a promise to return. The followers of Jesus, who had been fearful following the Crucifixion, are encouraged by Jesus' resurrection and continue to practice and to preach his teachings. The Apostle Paul preaches throughout the eastern Mediterranean, is arrested, and appeals. He is sent to Rome for trial, and the narrative breaks off.
Epistles/Revelation
The epistles (literally "letters") are largely concerned with theology, but the theological arguments they present form a "history of theology". Revelation deals with the last judgement and the end of the world.
Extra-biblical sources[edit]
Prior to the 19th century, textual analysis of the Bible itself was the only tool available to extract and evaluate whatever historical data it contained. The past two hundred years, however, have seen a proliferation of new sources of data and analytical tools, including:
Other Near Eastern texts, documents and inscriptions[17]
The material remains recovered throughout the Near East by archaeological excavation, analysed by ever more sophisticated technical and statistical apparatus[18]
Historical geography, demography, soil science, technology studies, and comparative linguistics[19]
Anthropological and sociological modelling
The Apocrypha, or non-canonical texts
Writing and reading history[edit]
W.F. Albright, the doyen of biblical archaeology, in 1957
The meaning of the term "history" is itself dependent on social and historical context. Paula McNutt, for instance, notes that the Old Testament narratives "do not record 'history' in the sense that history is understood in the twentieth century ... The past, for biblical writers as well as for twentieth-century readers of the Bible, has meaning only when it is considered in light of the present, and perhaps an idealized future." (p. 4, emphasis added)[20]
Biblical history has also diversified its focus during the modern era. The project of biblical archaeology associated with W.F. Albright, which sought to validate the historicity of the events narrated in the Bible through the ancient texts and material remains of the Near East,[21] has a more specific focus compared to the more expansive view of history described by archaeologist William Dever. In discussing the role of his discipline in interpreting the biblical record, Dever has pointed to multiple histories within the Bible, including the history of theology (the relationship between God and believers), political history (usually the account of "Great Men"), narrative history (the chronology of events), intellectual history (ideas and their development, context and evolution), socio-cultural history (institutions, including their social underpinnings in family, clan, tribe and social class and the state), cultural history (overall cultural evolution, demography, socio-economic and political structure and ethnicity), technological history (the techniques by which humans adapt to, exploit and make use of the resources of their environment), natural history (how humans discover and adapt to the ecological facts of their natural environment), and material history (artefacts as correlates of changes in human behaviour).[22]
A special challenge for assessing the historicity of the Bible is sharply differing perspectives on the relationship between narrative history and theological meaning. Supporters of biblical literalism "deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood."[23] But prominent scholars have expressed diametrically opposing views: "[T]he stories about the promise given to the patriarchs in Genesis are not historical, nor do they intend to be historical; they are rather historically determined expressions about Israel and Israel's relationship to its God, given in forms legitimate to their time, and their truth lies not in their facticity, nor in the historicity, but their ability to express the reality that Israel experienced."[24]
Challenges to historicity[edit]
The Hebrew Bible[edit]
Genesis: Literal vs. Symbolic Interpretation[edit]
The Garden of Eden: from history to mythology. By Lucas Cranach der Ältere(1472–1553)
There had always been a critical tradition dating back to at least St Augustine of Hippo (354–430), with interpretations "plainly at variance with what are commonly perceived in evangelicalism as traditional views of Genesis."[25] The Jewish tradition has also maintained a critical thread in its approach to biblical primeval history. The influential medieval philosopher Maimonides maintained a skeptical ambiguity towards creation ex nihilo and considered the stories about Adam more as "philosophical anthropology, rather than as historical stories whose protagonist is the 'first man'."[26] Greek philosophers Aristotle,[27] Critolaus[28] and Proclus[29] held that the world was eternal.
The birth of geology was marked by the publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earth in 1788. This marked the intellectual revolution that would dethrone Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and prehistory. The first casualty was the Creation story itself, and by the early 19th century "no responsible scientist contended for the literal credibility of the Mosaic account of creation." (p. 224)[30] The battle between uniformitarianism and catastrophism kept the Flood alive in the emerging discipline, until Adam Sedgwick, the president of the Geological Society, publicly recanted his previous support in his 1831 presidential address:
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[31]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, and remains, uneven but the mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than history.[32]
Authorship of the Torah[edit]
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, (which is the only proof of matter of fact)."[33]
Title page of Simon's Critical history, 1682.
The Jewish philosopher and pantheist Baruch Spinoza echoed Hobbes's doubts about the provenance of the historical books in his A Theologico-Political Treatise (published in 1670),[34] and elaborated on the suggestion that the final redaction of these texts was post-exilic under the auspices of Ezra (Chapter IX). He had earlier been effectively excommunicated by the rabbinical council of Amsterdam for his perceived heresies. The French priest Richard Simon brought these critical perspectives to the Catholic tradition in 1678, observing "the most part of the Holy Scriptures that are come to us, are but Abridgments and as Summaries of ancient Acts which were kept in the Registries of the Hebrews," in what was probably the first work of biblical textual criticism in the modern sense.[35]
In response Jean Astruc, applying source criticism methods common in the analysis of classical secular texts to the Pentateuch, believed he could detect four different manuscript traditions, which he claimed Moses himself had redacted. (p. 62–64)[32] His 1753 book initiated the school known as higher criticism that culminated in Julius Wellhausen formalising the documentary hypothesis in the 1870s,[36] which in various modified forms still dominates understanding of the composition of the historical narratives.
By the end of the 19th century the scholarly consensus was that the Pentateuch was the work of many authors writing from 1000 BCE (the time of David) to 500 BCE (the time of Ezra) and redacted c.450, and as a consequence whatever history it contained was more often polemical than strictly factual – a conclusion reinforced by the then fresh scientific refutations of what were at the time widely classed as biblical mythologies, as discussed above.
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[37]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[38]
Historicity of events in Ancient Israel and Judah[edit]
Further information: Archeology of Israel
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counter-attacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[39] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[40]
The scholarly history of the Deuteronomic history parallels that of the Pentateuch: the European tradition history school argued that the narrative was untrustworthy and could not be used to construct a narrative history; the American Albright school asserted that it could when tested against the archaeological record; and modern archaeological techniques proved crucial in deciding the issue. The test case was the book of Joshua and its account of a rapid, destructive conquest of the Canaanite cities: but by the 1960s it had become clear that the archaeological record did not, in fact, support the account of the conquest given in Joshua: the cities which the Bible records as having been destroyed by the Israelites were either uninhabited at the time, or, if destroyed, were destroyed at widely different times, not in one brief period.[citation needed] The most high-profile example was the "fall of Jericho."
John Garstang, who excavated in the 1930s, announced that he had found fallen walls dating to the time of the biblical Battle of Jericho.[41] However, Garstang later revised the destruction to a much earlier period.[41] Kathleen Kenyon dated the destruction of the walled city to the middle of the 16th century (c. 1550 BC), too early to match the usual dating of the Exodus to Pharaoh Ramses, on the basis of her excavations in the early 1950s.[42] The same conclusion, based on an analysis of all the excavation findings, was reached by Piotr Bienkowski.[43]
Thomas L. Thompson, a leading minimalist scholar for example has written
"There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough."
These views are contentious with regard to modern evidence.[citation needed]
Proponents of this theory also point to the fact that the division of the land into two entities, centered at Jerusalem and Shechem, goes back to the Egyptian rule of Israel in the New Kingdom. Solomon's empire is said to have stretched from the Euphrates in the north to the Red Sea in the south; it would have required a large commitment of men and arms and a high level of organization to conquer, subdue, and govern this area. But there is little archaeological evidence of Jerusalem being a sufficiently large city in the 10th century BCE, and Judah seems to be sparsely settled in that time period. Since Jerusalem has been destroyed and then subsequently rebuilt approximately 15 to 20 times since the time of David and Solomon, some argue much of the evidence could easily have been eliminated.
None of the conquests of David nor Solomon are mentioned in contemporary histories. Culturally, the Bronze Age collapse is otherwise a period of general cultural impoverishment of the whole Levantine region, making it difficult to consider the existence of any large territorial unit such as the Davidic kingdom, whose cultural features rather seem to resemble the later kingdom of Hezekiah or Josiah than the political and economic conditions of the 11th century. The biblical account makes no claim that Israel directly governed the areas included in their empires which are portrayed instead as tributaries.[citation needed] However, since the discovery of an inscription dating to the 9th or 8th century BCE on the Tel Dan Stele unearthed in the north of Israel, which may refer to the "house of David" as a monarchic dynast,[44] the debate has continued.[45] This is still disputed. There is a debate as to whether the united monarchy, the empire of King Solomon, and the rebellion of Jeroboam ever existed, or whether they are a late fabrication. The Mesha Stele, dated to c. 840 BCE, translated by most scholars as a reference to the House of David, and mentions events and names found in Kings.[46]
There is a problem with the sources for this period of history (the United Monarchy). There are no contemporary independent documents other than the accounts of the Books of Samuel, which exhibits too many anachronisms to have been a contemporary account. For example there is mention of later armor (1 Samuel 17:4–7, 38–39; 25:13), use of camels (1 Samuel 30:17), and cavalry (as distinct from chariotry) (1 Samuel 13:5, 2 Samuel 1:6), iron picks and axes (as though they were common, (2 Samuel 12:31), sophisticated siege techniques (2 Samuel 20:15). There is a gargantuan troop (2 Samuel 17:1), a battle with 20,000 casualties (2 Samuel 18:7), and a reference to Kushite paramilitary and servants, clearly giving evidence of a date in which Kushites were common, after the 26th Dynasty of Egypt, the period of the last quarter of the 8th century BCE.[47] The historicity of the Book of Samuel is dubious, and many scholars regard it as legendary in origin, particularly given the lack of evidence for the battles described involving the destruction of the Canaanite peoples (most scholars believe that the Israelites entered the land peacefully, as an offshoot from the Canaanites). The dramatization of real or legendary battles was common in the Ancient Near East, in this context it served to glorify Israel's national god.
New Testament[edit]
Historicity of Jesus[edit]
Main article: Historicity of Jesus
The historicity of some NT teachings of Jesus is also currently debated among biblical scholars. The "quest for the historical Jesus" began as early as the 18th century, and has continued to this day. The most notable recent scholarship came in the 1980s and 1990s with the work of J. D. Crossan,[48] James D. G. Dunn,[49] John P. Meier,[50] E. P. Sanders[51] and N. T. Wright[52] being the most widely read and discussed. The earliest New Testament texts which refer to Jesus, Paul's letters, are usually dated in the 50s CE. Since Paul records very little of Jesus' life and activities, these are of little help in determining facts about the life of Jesus, although they may contain references to information given to Paul from the eyewitnesses of Jesus.[53]
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shed light into the context of 1st century Judea, noting the diversity of Jewish belief as well as shared expectations and teachings. For example the expectation of the coming messiah, the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount and much else of the early Christian movement are found to have existed within apocalyptic Judaism of the period.[54] This has had the effect of centering Early Christianity much more within its Jewish roots than was previously the case. It is now recognised that Rabbinical Judaism and Early Christianity are only two of the many strands which survived until the Jewish revolt of 66 to 70 CE,[55][56] see also Split of early Christianity and Judaism.
Almost all historical critics agree that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection.[57]
The absence of evidence of Jesus' life before his meeting with John the Baptist has led to many speculations. It would seem that part of the explanation may lie in the early conflict between Paul and the Desposyni Ebionim, led by James the Just, supposedly the brother of Jesus, that led to Gospel passages critical of Jesus' family.[58]
Historicity of the Gospels[edit]
Main article: Historical reliability of the Gospels
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[16] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[59][60] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[61] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out, that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is, that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[62][63][64][65] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[66] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[67] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[68] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[67]
Historicity of the Acts[edit]
The historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, the primary source for the Apostolic Age, is a major issue for biblical scholars and historians of Early Christianity. Some scholars view the work as being inaccurate and in conflict with the Pauline epistles. Acts portrays Paul as more in line with Jewish Christianity, while the Pauline epistles record more conflict, such as the Incident at Antioch, see also Paul the Apostle and Judaism.
Schools of archaeological and historical thought[edit]
Overview of academic views[edit]
An educated reading of the biblical text requires knowledge of when it was written, by whom, and for what purpose. For example, many academics would agree that the Pentateuch was in existence some time shortly after the 6th century BCE, but they disagree about when it was written. Proposed dates vary from the 15th century BCE to the 6th century BCE. One popular hypothesis points to the reign of Josiah (7th century BCE). In this hypothesis, the events of, for example, Exodus would have happened centuries before they were finally edited. This topic is expanded upon in dating the Bible.
An important point to keep in mind is the documentary hypothesis, which using the biblical evidence itself, claims to demonstrate that our current version was based on older written sources that were lost. Although it has been modified heavily over the years, most scholars accept some form of this hypothesis. There have also been and are a number of scholars who reject it, for example Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen[69] and Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser, Jr.,[70] as well as the late R. N. Whybray, Umberto Cassuto, O. T. Allis and Gleason Archer.
Maximalist – Minimalist dichotomy[edit]
The major split of biblical scholarship into two opposing schools is strongly disapproved by non-fundamentalist biblical scholars, as being an attempt by conservative Christians to portray the field as a bipolar argument, of which only one side is correct.[71]
Recently the difference between the Maximalist and Minimalist has reduced, however a new school started with a work, "The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel" by Israel Finkelstein, Amihai Mazar, and Brian B. Schmidt.[72] This school argues that post-processual archaeology enables us to recognize the existence of a middle ground between Minimalism and Maximalism, and that both these extremes need to be rejected. Archaeology offers both confirmation of parts of the biblical record and also poses challenges to the interpretations made by some. The careful examination of the evidence demonstrates that the historical accuracy of the first part of the Old Testament is greatest during the reign of Josiah. Some feel that the accuracy diminishes, the further backwards one proceeds from this date. This they claim would confirm that a major redaction of the texts seems to have occurred at about that date.
Biblical minimalism[edit]
Main article: Biblical minimalism
The viewpoint sometimes called Biblical minimalism generally hold that the Bible is principally a theological and apologetic work, and all stories within it are of an aetiological character. The early stories are held to have a historical basis that was reconstructed centuries later, and the stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs mere legendary eponyms to describe later historical realities. Further, biblical minimalists hold that the twelve tribes of Israel were a later construction, the stories of King David and King Saul were modeled upon later Irano-Hellenistic examples, and that there is no archaeological evidence that the united kingdom of Israel, which the Bible says that David and Solomon ruled over an empire from the Euphrates to Eilath, ever existed.
"It is hard to pinpoint when the movement started but 1968 seems to be a reasonable date. During this year, two prize winning essays were written in Copenhagen; one by Niels Peter Lemche, the other by Heike Friis, which advocated a complete rethinking of the way we approach the Bible and attempt to draw historical conclusions from it"[73]
In published books, one of the early advocates of the current school of thought known as biblical minimalism is Giovanni Garbini, Storia e ideologia nell'Israele antico (1986), translated into English as History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (1988). In his footsteps followed Thomas L. Thompson with his lengthy Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources (1992) and, building explicitly on Thompson's book, P. R. Davies' shorter work, In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (1992). In the latter, Davies finds historical Israel only in archaeological remains, biblical Israel only in Scripture, and recent reconstructions of "ancient Israel" to be an unacceptable amalgam of the two. Thompson and Davies see the entire Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) as the imaginative creation of a small community of Jews at Jerusalem during the period which the Bible assigns to after the return from the Babylonian exile, from 539 BCE onward. Niels Peter Lemche, Thompson's fellow faculty member at the University of Copenhagen, also followed with several titles that show Thompson's influence, including The Israelites in history and tradition (1998). The presence of both Thompson and Lemche at the same institution has led to the use of the term "Copenhagen school". The effect of biblical minimalism from 1992 onward was debate with more than two points of view[74][75]
Biblical maximalism[edit]
There is no scholarly controversy on the historicity of the events recounted after the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BCE, but there is great controversy concerning earlier data. The positions of "maximalists" vs. "minimalists" refer primarily to the monarchy period, spanning the 10th to 7th centuries BCE. The maximalist position holds that the accounts of the United Monarchy and the early kings of Israel, king David and king Saul, are to be taken as largely historical.[76]
Decreasing conflict between the maximalist and minimalist schools[edit]
In 2001, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman published the book The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts which advocated a view midway toward biblical minimalism and caused an uproar among many conservatives. In the 25th anniversary issue of Biblical Archeological Review(March/April 2001 edition), editor Hershel Shanks quoted several biblical scholars who insisted that minimalism was dying,[77] although leading minimalists deny this and a claim has been made "We are all minimalists now".[78]
Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now.[3]
—Philip Davies, "Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?"
The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.
In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.
—Lester L. Grabbe, "Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel"
In 2003, Kenneth Kitchen, a scholar who adopts a more maximalist point of view, authored the book On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Kitchen advocated the reliability of many (though not all) parts of the Torah and in no uncertain terms criticizes the work of Finkelstein and Silberman, to which Finkelstein has since responded.
Jennifer Wallace describes archaeologist Israel Finkelstein's view in her article Shifting Ground in the Holy Land, appearing in Smithsonian Magazine, May 2006:
He [Finkelstein] cites the fact – now accepted by most archaeologists – that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century B.C. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, Ai was abandoned before 2000 B.C. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 B.C. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
However, despite problems with the archaeological record, some maximalists place Joshua in the mid second millennium, at about the time the Egyptian Empire came to rule over Canaan, and not the 13th century as Finkelstein or Kitchen claim, and view the destruction layers of the period as corroboration of the biblical account. The destruction of Hazor in the mid-13th century is seen as corroboration of the biblical account of the later destruction carried out by Deborah and Barak as recorded in the Book of Judges. The location that Finkelstein refers to as "Ai" is generally dismissed as the location of the biblical Ai, since it was destroyed and buried in the 3rd millennium. The prominent site has been known by that name since at least Hellenistic times, if not before. Minimalists all hold that dating these events as contemporary are etiological explanations written centuries after the events they claim to report.
For the united monarchy both Finkelstein and Silberman do accept that David and Solomon were really existing persons (no kings but bandit leaders or hill country chieftains)[79][80] from Judah about the 10th century BCE[81] - they do not assume that there was such a thing as united monarchy with a capital in Jerusalem.
The Bible reports that Jehoshaphat, a contemporary of Ahab, offered manpower and horses for the northern kingdom's wars against the Arameans. He strengthened his relationship with the northern kingdom by arranging a diplomatic marriage: the Israelite princess Athaliah, sister or daughter of King Ahab, married Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 8:18). The house of David in Jerusalem was now directly linked to (and apparently dominated by) the Israelite royalty of Samaria. In fact, we might suggest that this represented the north's takeover by marriage of Judah. Thus in the ninth century BCE—nearly a century after the presumed time of David—we can finally point to the historical existence of a great united monarchy of Israel, stretching from Dan in the north to Beer-sheba in the south, with significant conquered territories in Syria and Transjordan. But this united monarchy—a real united monarchy—was ruled by the Omrides, not the Davidides, and its capital was Samaria, not Jerusalem.[4]
—Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, David and Solomon. In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition.
Others such as David Ussishkin argue that those who follow the biblical depiction of a united monarchy do so on the basis of limited evidence while hoping to uncover real archaeological proof in the future.[82] Gunnar Lehmann suggests that there is still a possibility that David and Solomon were able to become local chieftains of some importance and claims that Jerusalem at the time was at best a small town in a sparsely populated area in which alliances of tribal kinship groups formed the basis of society. He goes on further to claim that it was at best a small regional centre, one of three to four in the territory of Judah and neither David nor Solomon had the manpower or the requisite social/political/administrative structure to rule the kind of empire described in the Bible.[83]
These views are strongly criticized by William G. Dever,[84] Helga Weippert, Amihai Mazar and Amnon Ben-Tor.
André Lemaire states in Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple[85] that the principal points of the biblical tradition with Solomon as generally trustworthy, as does Kenneth Kitchen, who argue that Solomon ruled over a comparatively wealthy "mini-empire", rather than a small city-state.
Recently Finkelstein has joined with the more conservative Amihai Mazar, to explore the areas of agreement and disagreement and there are signs the intensity of the debate between the so-called minimalist and maximalist scholars is diminishing.[72] This view is also taken by Richard S. Hess,[86] which shows there is in fact a plurality of views between maximalists and minimalists. Jack Cargill[87] has shown that popular textbooks not only fail to give readers the up to date archaeological evidence, but that they also fail to correctly represent the diversity of views present on the subject. And Megan Bishop Moore and Brad E. Kelle provide an overview of the respective evolving approaches and attendant controversies, especially during the period from the mid-1980s through 2011, in their book Biblical History and Israel's Past.
See also[edit]
Abraham#Historicity and origins
Authorship of the Bible
Biblical archaeology school
Biblical criticism
Biblical inerrancy
Biblical literalism
Book of Daniel#Composition
Book of Esther#Historicity
Book of Joshua#Genre (historicity)
Rudolf Bultmann
Census of Quirinius
Chronology of Jesus
Crucifixion darkness
Dating the Bible
David#Historicity
Development of the New Testament canon
Documentary hypothesis
The Exodus#Historicity
Ezra#Academic view
Flood geology
Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles
Historicity of Jesus
Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)#History
List of artifacts in biblical archaeology
Massacre of the Innocents#Historicity
Moses#Historicity
Sanhedrin trial of Jesus
Science and the Bible
Theudas
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Thompson 2014, p. 164.
2.Jump up ^ Peter Enns, 3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship, January 10, 2013. Quote: "Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it."
3.^ Jump up to: a b Philip Davies "Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?"
4.^ Jump up to: a b Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2006). "3. Murder, Lust, and Betrayal". David and Solomon. In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. New York: Free Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-0-7432-4363-6. Retrieved December 24, 2010.
5.Jump up ^ "The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape." —Philip Davies, Minimalism, "Ancient Israel," and Anti-Semitism
6.Jump up ^ "He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging." —Jennifer Wallace, "Shifting Ground in the Holy Land", Smithsonian Magazine, May 2006
7.Jump up ^ "So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another." —Jonathan Michael Golden, Ancient Canaan and Israel: new perspectives, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 275
8.Jump up ^ Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel, Proceedings of the British Academy, October 2007
9.Jump up ^ Komoszewski, J. Ed; Wallace, Daniel J. (2006). Reinventing Jesus: What the Da Vinci Code and Other Novel Speculations Don't Tell You. Grand Rapids, Mich: Kregel Publications. p. 70. ISBN 0-8254-2982-X.
10.Jump up ^ Aland, Barbara; Aland, Kurt (1995). The text of the New Testament: an introduction to the critical editions and to the theory and practice of modern textual criticism. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 29. ISBN 0-8028-4098-1.
11.Jump up ^ Ferguson, Everett (2002). "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon". In Sanders, James; McDonald, Lee Martin. The Canon Debate. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers. p. 301. ISBN 1-56563-517-5.
12.^ Jump up to: a b Lindberg, Carter (2006). A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing. p. 15. ISBN 1-4051-1078-3.
13.Jump up ^ Brakke, David (1994). "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty Ninth Festal Letter". Harvard Theological Review 87: 395–419.
14.Jump up ^ Bruce, F. F. (1988). The canon of scripture. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press. p. 225. ISBN 0-8308-1258-X.
15.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart (2011). "Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are", Harper One, ISBN 0062012614
16.^ Jump up to: a b Mack, Burton (1996), "Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth", Harper One, ISBN 0060655186
17.Jump up ^ The most recent and most complete anthology of ancient Near Eastern texts, all translated into English, is The Context of Scripture (3 vols.; ed. William W. Hallo. assoc. ed. K. Lawson Younger, Jr.; Leiden: Brill, 1997-2002). Its worthy predecessor, which is still useful but lacks many texts discovered since the mid-20th century, is Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ed. James B. Pritchard; 3rd ed. with supplement; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969). The two preeminent anthologies of inscriptions of ancient Israel and its immediate neighbors such as Aram (ancient Syria), Ammon, Edom, Moab, Phoenicia, and Philistia (not Egypt or Mesopotamia) are: 1) Shmuel Ahituv, ed., Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period (Jerusalem: Carta, 2008) and 2) Nahman Avigad and Benjamin Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997). This last book has been criticized for mixing seals and seal impressions of known authenticity with unreliable seals and seal impressions of unknown origin, which could be forgeries. In general, if a known place of excavation by an archaeological team is mentioned, the discoveries should be considered reliable; otherwise not.
18.Jump up ^ The most extensive summary, site by site, is The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (4 vols. plus supplementary vol. 5; ed. Ephraim Stern; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993-2008). A two-volume series which gives period-by-period coverage of archaeological discoveries and their significance is 1) Amihay Mazar, Archaeological of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. (New York: Doubleday, 1990) and 2) Ephraim Stern, Archaeological of the Land of the Bible, Volume II: the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732-332 B.C.E. (New York: Doubleday, 2001)
19.Jump up ^ In historical geography, the preeminent book in English is Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006).
20.Jump up ^ McNutt, Paula M. (1999). Reconstructing the society of ancient Israel. London: SPCK. ISBN 0-281-05259-X.
21.Jump up ^ Albright, William Foxwell (1985). Archaeology of Palestine. Peter Smith Pub Inc. p. 128. ISBN 0-8446-0003-2. "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details of the Bible as a source of history."
22.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (2008), "Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel" (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)
23.Jump up ^ Henry, Carl Ferdinand Howard (1999) [1979]. "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy". God, Revelation and Authority 4. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books. pp. 211–219. ISBN 1-58134-056-7.
24.Jump up ^ Thompson, Thomas (2002) [1974]. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham. Valley Forge, Pa: Trinity Press International. ISBN 1-56338-389-6.
25.Jump up ^ Young, Davis A (March 1988). "The contemporary relevance of Augustine's view of Creation". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40 (1): 42–45. "But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions"
26.Jump up ^ Klein-Braslavy, Sara (1986). "The Creation of the world and Maimonides' interpretation of Gen. i–v". In Pines, S.; Yovel, Y. Maimonides and Philosophy (International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives internationales d'histoire des idées). Berlin: Springer. pp. 65–78. ISBN 90-247-3439-8.
27.Jump up ^ Physics I, 7
28.Jump up ^ Tiziano Dorandi, Chapter 2: Chronology, in Algra et al. (1999) The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, page 50. Cambridge
29.Jump up ^ Lang, Helen, "Introduction", p.2 in Proclus (2001). On the Eternity of the World. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-22554-6.
30.Jump up ^ Gillispie, Charles Coulston (1996) [1951]. Genesis and geology: a study in the relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in Great Britain, 1790–1850. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-34481-2.
31.Jump up ^ Quoted in Gillispie, Charles Coulston (1996) [1951]. Genesis and geology: a study in the relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in Great Britain, 1790–1850. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp. 142–143. ISBN 0-674-34481-2.
32.^ Jump up to: a b Wenham, Gordon J. (2003). "Genesis 1–11". Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-2551-7.
33.Jump up ^ Hobbes, Thomas (1651). "Chapter XXXIII. Of the number, antiquity, scope, authority and interpreters of the books of Holy Scripture". Leviathan. Green Dragon in St. Paul's Churchyard: Andrew Crooke.
34.Jump up ^ Spinoza, Baruch (1670). "Chapter VIII. Of the authorship of the Pentateuch and the other historical books of the Old Testament". A Theologico-Political Treatise (Part II).
35.Jump up ^ Simon, Richard (1682). A critical history of the Old Testament (PDF). London: Walter Davis. p. 21.
36.Jump up ^ Wellhausen, Julius (1885). Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black.
37.Jump up ^ Gunkel, Hermann (1997) [1901]. Biddle, Mark E. tr, ed. Genesis. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. p. lxviii. ISBN 0-86554-517-0.
38.Jump up ^ "[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable." Thompson, op cit, p. 328
39.Jump up ^ Mazar, Amihay (1992). Archaeology of the land of the Bible, 10,000-586 BCE. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-42590-2.
40.Jump up ^ Dever, William (March 1993). "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?". The Biblical Archaeologist (The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 56, No. 1) 56 (1): 25–35. doi:10.2307/3210358. JSTOR 3210358.
41.^ Jump up to: a b Thomas A. Holland (1997). "Jericho". In Eric M. Meyers. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Oxford University Press. pp. 220–224.
42.Jump up ^ Kathleen M. Kenyon (1957). Digging up Jericho: The Results of the Jericho Excavations, 1952-1956. New York: Praeger. p. 229.
43.Jump up ^ Piotr Bienkowski (1986). Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Warminster. pp. 120–125.
44.Jump up ^ Schniedewind WM (1996). "Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu's Revolt". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 302: 75–90. doi:10.2307/1357129. JSTOR 1357129.
45.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (2002), What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ISBN 080282126X
46.Jump up ^ LeMaire, André. "House of David Restored in Moabite Inscription", Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1994.
47.Jump up ^ Redford, Donald B. (1992). Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in ancient times. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. p. 305. ISBN 0-691-00086-7.
48.Jump up ^ Crossan, J. D. "The Historical Jesus: A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant," HarperOne, 1993, ISBN 0060616296
49.Jump up ^ James D. G. Dunn, "Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1, Eerdmans, 2003"
50.Jump up ^ John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 vols., the most recent volume from Yale University Press, 2001"
51.Jump up ^ Sanders, E.P. "The Historical Figure of Jesus," Penguin, 1996, ISBN 0141928220
52.Jump up ^ Wright, N.T. "Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God", Vol. 2, Augsburg Fortress Press, 1997, ISBN 0800626826
53.Jump up ^ John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew Volume I, Doubleday, 1991.
54.Jump up ^ The Dead Sea scrolls and Christian origins, Joseph Fitzmyer, pp. 28ff
55.Jump up ^ Bernstein, Richard (April 1, 1998). "BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Looking for Jesus and Jews in the Dead Sea Scrolls". The New York Times. Retrieved May 25, 2010.
56.Jump up ^ Shanks, Hershel "Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader From the Biblical Archaeology Review", archive.org
57.Jump up ^ Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew, Vol. II, Doubleday, 1994, ISBN 0300140339
58.Jump up ^ EBIONISM; EBIONITES in the Bible Encyclopedia - ISBE (Bible History Online). Bible-history.com. Retrieved on 2012-09-11.
59.Jump up ^ Bauckham, Richard "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006, ISBN 0802831621
60.Jump up ^ Byrskog, Samuel "Story as History, History as Story," Mohr Siebeck, 2000, ISBN 3161473051
61.Jump up ^ Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, March 28, 2006
62.Jump up ^ Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, Danske selskab, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1998.
63.Jump up ^ Nineham, Dennis, Saint Mark, Westminster Press, 1978, ISBN 0664213448, p 193
64.Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman, The New Testament. A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, p. 74 ISBN 0195154622
65.Jump up ^ McDonald, Lee Martin and Porter, Stanley. Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature, Hendrickson Publishers, 2000, p. 286 ISBN 1565632664
66.Jump up ^ Strobel, Lee. ”The Case for Christ”. 1998. Chapter one, an interview with Blomberg, ISBN 0310209307
67.^ Jump up to: a b Text-critical methodology and the pre-Caesarean text: Codex W in the Gospel, Larry W. Hurtado, p. 25
68.Jump up ^ "biblical literature." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 02 Nov. 2010 .
69.Jump up ^ Kitchen, K. A. (2003). On the reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans. ISBN 0-8028-4960-1.
70.Jump up ^ "Exploding the J.E.D.P. Theory - The Documentary Hypothesis". jashow.org.
71.Jump up ^ Spong, John Shelby (1992) "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" (Harper)
72.^ Jump up to: a b Finkelstein, Israel; Mazar, Amihai and Schmidt, Brian (2007). The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel. Society of Biblical Lit. ISBN 978-1-58983-277-0.
73.Jump up ^ George Athas, 'Minimalism': The Copenhagen School of Thought in Biblical Studies, edited transcript of lecture, 3rd ed., University of Sydney, April 29, 1999.
74.Jump up ^ Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2010). "Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992–2008, Part 1: Introducing a Bibliographic Essay in Five Parts". Journal of Religious and Theological Information 9 (3–4): 76. doi:10.1080/10477845.2010.526920.
75.Jump up ^ Brettler, Marc Z. (2003). "The Copenhagen School: The Historiographical Issues". AJS Review 27: 1–21. doi:10.1017/S0364009403000011. JSTOR 4131767. Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2012). "Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992–2008 and Beyond, Part 2.1: The Literature of Perspective, Critique, and Methodology, First Half". Journal of Religious and Theological Information 11 (3–4): 101–137, in which the relevant section is "Toward a Balanced View of Minimalism: A Summary of Published Critiques"; the Official version of record is available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10477845.2012.673111?journalCode=wrti20#.UjVAiNI6Pgc . Author's Accepted Draft if freely available at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_fsdocs/52/.
76.Jump up ^ "Maximalists and Minimalists", Livius.org.
77.Jump up ^ Jack Cargill Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks. Quoting Amy Dockster Marcus about the minimalists: "The bottom line is that when it comes to the big picture, they are often right. Many of their ideas, once considered far-fetched, are now solidly mainstream concepts."
78.Jump up ^ American Journal of Theology & Philosophy Vol. 14, No.1 January, 1993
79.Jump up ^ David and Solomon Beschrijving. Bol.com
80.Jump up ^ Richard N. Ostling Was King David legend or fiction? The Associated Press
81.Jump up ^ David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition pp20
82.Jump up ^ Ussishkin, David, "Solomon's Jerusalem: The Texts and the Facts on the Ground" in Vaughn Andrew G. and Killebrew, Ann E. eds. (2003), "Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period" (SBL Symposium Series 18; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature)
83.Jump up ^ Lehrmann, Gunnar, "The United Monarchy in the Countryside: Jerusalem, Judah, and the Shephelah during the Tenth Century BCE", in Vaughn Andrew G. and Killebrew, Ann E. eds. (2003), "Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period" (SBL Symposium Series 18; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature)
84.Jump up ^ Dever 2001, p. 160
85.Jump up ^ Shanks, Hershel (1999). Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, Pearson, p. 113 ISBN 0130853631
86.Jump up ^ Hess, Richard S. (2007) "Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey", Baker Academic, ISBN 0801027179
87.Jump up ^ "Jack Cargill - Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks - The History Teacher, 34.3". Retrieved 5 October 2014.
References[edit]
Banks, Diane (2006). Writing The History Of Israel. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Brettler, Mark Zvi (2005). How to Read the Bible. Jewish Publication Society.
Davies, Philip R. (1995). In Search of 'Ancient Israel'. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Davies, Philip R. (n.d.). Minimalism, 'Ancient Israel', and Anti-Semitism. The Bible and Interpretation.
Davies, Philip R., Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures, 1998.
Davies, Philip R. (2008). Memories of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press.
Dever, William G. (2012). The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel. Eerdmans.
Finkelstein, Israel; Mazar, Amihay; Schmidt, Brian B. (2007). The Quest for the Historical Israel. Society of Biblical Literature.
Finkelstein, Israel, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, 1988
Garbini, Giovanni, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel, 1988 (trans from Italian).
Halpern, Baruch, "Erasing History: The Minimalist Assault on Ancient Israel", Bible Review, December 1995, p26 - 35, 47.
Lemche, Niels Peter, Early Israel, 1985.
Lemche, Niels Peter (1998). The Israelites in History and Tradition. Westminster John Knox Press.
Moore, Megan Bishop; Kelle, Brad E. (2011). Biblical History and Israel's Past. Eerdmans.
Provan, Iain W., "Ideologies, Literary and Critical Reflections on Recent Writing on the History of Israel", Journal of Biblical Literature 114/4 (1995), p585-606. (a critique of the Copenhagen School of Thought - with responses by Davies (above) and Thompson (below))
Thompson, Thomas L. (1992). Early History of the Israelite People. Brill.
Thompson, Thomas L., "A Neo-Albrightean School in History and Biblical Scholarship?" Journal of Biblical Literature 114/4 (1995), p683-698. (a response to the article by Iain W. Provan - above)
Thompson, Thomas L. (1999). The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel. Basic Book.
Thompson, Thomas L. (n.d.). A view from Copenhagen: Israel and the History of Palestine. The Bible and Interpretation.
Van Seters, John, Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975.
Whitelam, Keith W. (1996). The Invention of Ancient Israel. Routledge.
Barenboim, Peter. "Biblical Roots of Separation of Powers", Moscow : Letny Sad, 2005, ISBN 5-94381-123-0, http://lccn.loc.gov/2006400578
Biran, Avraham. "'David' Found at Dan." Biblical Archaeology Review 20:2 (1994): 26–39.
Brettler, Marc Z., “The Copenhagen School: The Historiographical Issues,” AJS Review 27 (2003): 1–21.
Coogan, Michael D. "Canaanites: Who Were They and Where Did They Live?" Bible Review 9:3 (1993): 44ff.
Davies, Philip R. 1992, 2nd edition 1995, reprinted 2004.In Search of 'Ancient Israel' . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Dawood, N.J. 1978. Tales from the Arabian Nights, Doubleday, A delightful children's version translated from the original Arabic.
Dever, William G. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2001
Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil A. 2001 The Bible Unearthed. New York: Simon and Schuster
Garbini, Giovanni. 1988. History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. Translated by John Bowden from the original Italian edition. New York: Crossroad.
Harpur, Tom. 2004. "The Pagan Christ. Recovering the Lost Light" Thomas Allen Publishers, Toronto.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. 2003 On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Koehler; Dr. Ralph D. Christian Bible History. ISBN 1-4208-1242-4.
Larsson, G. 2007. "The Chronological System of the Old Testament". Peter Lang GmbH.
Lemche, Niels P. 1998. The Israelites in History and Tradition London : SPCK ; Louisville, Ky. : Westminster John Knox Press.
Mazar, Amihai. 1992. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000–586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday.
Miller, J. Maxwell, and John Haralson Hayes, "A history of ancient Israel and Judah" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1986)
Moore, Megan Bishop and Brad E. Kelle, Biblical History and Israel's Past, 2011.
Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975.
Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. 2010. "Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992–2008, Part 1: Introducing a Bibliographic Essay in Five Parts,” Journal of Religious and Theological Information 9/3–4: 71-83.
Na'aman, Nadav. 1996 ."The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem's Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E." BASOR. 304: 17–27.
Na'aman, Nadav. 1997 "Cow Town or Royal Capital: Evidence for Iron Age Jerusalem." Biblical Archaeology Review. 23, no. 4: 43–47, 67.
Noth, Martin, "Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien", 1943; English translation as "The Deuteronomistic History", Sheffield, 1981, and "The Chronicler's History", Sheffield, 1987.
Shanks, Hershel. 1995. Jerusalem: An Archaeological Biography. New York: Random House.
Shanks, Hershel. 1997 "Face to Face: Biblical Minimalists Meet Their Challengers." Biblical Archaeology Review. 23, no. 4: 26–42, 66.
Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God, Eerdmans, 2002 (1st edition 1990)
Steiner, Margareet and Jane Cahill. "David's Jerusalem: Fiction or Reality?" Biblical Archaeology Review 24:4 (1998): 25–33, 62–63; 34–41, 63. This article presents a debate between a Biblical minimalist and a Biblical maximalist.
Thompson, Thomas L. (2014). Biblical Narrative and Palestine's History: Changing Perspectives 2. Routledge.
________. The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past. London.
________. 1992. The Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources. Leiden and New York: Brill.
Yamauchi, Edwin, The Stones and the Scriptures. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1972.
External links[edit]
'Minimalism' – The Copenhagen School of Thought in Biblical Studies
Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable by Gary Habermas
Biblical Archaeology Society: examines discoveries and controversies about historical veracity of the Bible
Livius.org: Maximalism and minimalism
Notes on minimalism by George Athas
[hide]
v ·
t ·
e
The Bible and history
General studies
Biblical criticism ·
Biblical studies ·
History of ancient Israel and Judah ·
The Bible and history ·
Quest for the historical Jesus ·
Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg
Historicity
Biblical archaeology ·
Historicity of Jesus ·
Historicity of the Bible ·
Historical reliability of the Gospels ·
List of artifacts in biblical archaeology ·
List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources ·
List of burial places of biblical figures ·
List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts ·
List of New Testament papyri ·
List of New Testament uncials ·
Historical Jesus
Criticism
Criticism of the Bible ·
Christ myth theory
Bible Portal
Categories: Ancient Jewish history
Biblical criticism
Historicity of religion
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Čeština
Español
Italiano
Português
Slovenčina
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
Edit links
This page was last modified on 9 June 2015, at 05:11.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment