Historical Jesus Wikipedia pages

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


































  



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 18 June 2015, at 13:54.
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














Biblical criticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document. For criticisms made against the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance, see Criticism of the Bible.



 The Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible
Biblical criticism is the scholarly "study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning judgments about these writings".[1] Viewing biblical texts as having human rather than supernatural origins, it asks when and where a particular text originated; how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced; what influences were at work in its production; what sources were used in its composition; and what message it was intended to convey. It will vary slightly depending on whether the focus is on the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, the letters of New Testament or the Canonical gospels. It also plays an important role in the quest for a Historical Jesus.
It also addresses the physical text, including the meaning of the words and the way in which they are used, its preservation, history and integrity. Biblical criticism draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archaeology, anthropology, folklore, linguistics, Oral Tradition studies, and historical and religious studies.



Contents  [hide]
1 Background
2 History 2.1 Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
2.2 New Testament
3 Methods and perspectives 3.1 Textual criticism
3.2 Source criticism
3.3 Form criticism and tradition history
3.4 Redaction criticism
3.5 Canonical criticism
3.6 Rhetorical criticism
3.7 Narrative criticism
3.8 Psychological criticism
3.9 Socio-scientific criticism
3.10 Postmodernist criticism
3.11 Feminist exegesis
4 New Testament authenticity and the historical Jesus 4.1 Multiple attestation
4.2 Tendencies of the developing tradition
4.3 Embarrassment
4.4 Coherence
4.5 The Crucifixion
4.6 Semitisms
4.7 Sitz im Leben
5 Notable biblical scholars
6 See also
7 Notes
8 Further reading
9 External links

Background[edit]



 Andover-Harvard Theological Library, Harvard Divinity School.
Biblical criticism, defined as the treatment of biblical texts as natural rather than supernatural artifacts, grew out of the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 19th century it was divided between the higher criticism, the study of the composition and history of biblical texts, and lower criticism, the close examination of the text to establish their original or "correct" readings. These terms are largely no longer used, and contemporary criticism has seen the rise of new perspectives which draw on literary and multidisciplinary sociological approaches to address the meaning(s) of texts and the wider world in which they were conceived.
A division is still sometimes made between historical criticism and literary criticism. Historical criticism seeks to locate the text in history: it asks such questions as when the text was written, who the author/s might have been, and what history might be reconstructed from the answers. Literary criticism asks what audience the authors wrote for, their presumptive purpose, and the development of the text over time.
Historical criticism was the dominant form of criticism until the late 20th century, when biblical critics became interested in questions aimed more at the meaning of the text than its origins and developed methods drawn from mainstream literary criticism. The distinction is frequently referred to as one between diachronic and synchronic forms of criticism, the former concerned the development of texts through time, the latter treating texts as they exist at a particular moment, frequently the so-called "final form", meaning the Bible text as we have it today.
History[edit]
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
   
Both Old Testament and New Testament criticism originated in the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries and developed within the context of the scientific approach to the humanities (especially history) which grew during the 19th. Studies of the Old and New Testaments were often independent of each other, largely due to the difficulty of any single scholar having a sufficient grasp of the many languages required or of the cultural background for the different periods in which texts had their origins.
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament[edit]



 Title page of Richard Simon's "Critical History" (1685), an early work of biblical criticism.
Modern biblical criticism begins with the 17th century philosophers and theologians—Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, Richard Simon and others—who began to ask questions about the origin of the biblical text, especially the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament, i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). They asked specifically who had written these books; according to tradition their author was Moses, but these critics found contradictions and inconsistencies in the text that they concluded made Mosaic authorship improbable. In the 18th century Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, set out to refute these critics. Borrowing methods of textual criticism already in use to investigate Greek and Roman texts, he discovered what he believed were two distinct documents within Genesis. These, he felt, were the original scrolls written by Moses, much as the four Gospel writers had produced four separate but complementary accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. Later generations, he believed, had conflated these original documents to produce the modern book of Genesis, producing the inconsistencies and contradictions noted by Hobbes and Spinoza.
Astruc's methods were adopted by German scholars such as Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827) and Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849) in a movement which became known as the higher criticism (to distinguish it from the far longer-established close examination and comparison of individual manuscripts, called the lower criticism); this school reached its apogee with the influential synthesis of Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) in the 1870s, at which point it seemed to many that the Bible had at last been fully explained as a human document.
The implications of "higher criticism" were not welcomed by many religious scholars, not least the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903) condemned secular biblical scholarship in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus;[2] but in 1943 Pope Pius XII gave license to the new scholarship in his encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu: "textual criticism ... [is] quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books...Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed".[3] Today the modern Catechism states: "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression".[4]
New Testament[edit]



Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965). His The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906) demonstrated that 19th century "lives of Jesus" were reflections of the authors' own historical and social contexts.
The seminal figure in New Testament criticism was Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), who applied to it the methodology of Greek and Latin textual studies and became convinced that very little of what it said could be accepted as incontrovertibly true. Reimarus's conclusions appealed to the rationalism of 18th century intellectuals, but were deeply troubling to contemporary believers. Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789) - "Ecce Homo -The History of Jesus of Nazareth, a Critical Inquiry" (1769), the first Life of Jesus described as a mere historical man, published anonymously in Amsterdam. George Houston translated the work into English—published in Edinburgh, 1799, London, 1813, and New York in 1827—for which "blasphemy" Houston was condemned to two years in prison. In the 19th century important scholarship was done by David Strauss, Ernest Renan, Johannes Weiss, Albert Schweitzer and others, all of whom investigated the "historical Jesus" within the Gospel narratives. In a different field the work of H. J. Holtzmann was significant: he established a chronology for the composition of the various books of the New Testament which formed the basis for future research on this subject, and established the two-source hypothesis (the hypothesis that the gospels of Matthew and Luke drew on the gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as Q). By the first half of the 20th century a new generation of scholars including Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann, in Germany, Roy Harrisville and others in North America had decided that the quest for the Jesus of history had reached a dead end. Barth and Bultmann accepted that little could be said with certainty about the historical Jesus, and concentrated instead on the kerygma, or message, of the New Testament. The questions they addressed were: What was Jesus’s key message? How was that message related to Judaism? Does that message speak to our reality today?
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 revitalised interest in the possible contribution archaeology could make to the understanding of the New Testament. Joachim Jeremias and C. H. Dodd produced linguistic studies which tentatively identified layers within the Gospels that could be ascribed to Jesus, to the authors, and to the early Church; Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan assessed Jesus in the cultural milieu of first-century Judea; and the scholars of the Jesus Seminar assessed the individual tropes of the Gospels to arrive at a consensus on what could and could not be accepted as historical.
Contemporary New Testament criticism continues to follow the synthesising trend set during the latter half of the 20th century. There continues to be a strong interest in recovering the "historical Jesus", but this now tends to set the search in terms of Jesus' Jewishness (Bruce Chilton, Geza Vermes and others) and his formation by the political and religious currents of first-century Palestine (Marcus Borg).
Methods and perspectives[edit]



Source criticism: diagram of the two-source hypothesis, an explanation for the relationship of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.
The critical methods and perspectives now to be found are numerous, and the following overview should not be regarded as comprehensive.
Textual criticism[edit]
Textual criticism (sometimes still referred to as "lower criticism") refers to the examination of the text itself to identify its provenance or to trace its history. It takes as its basis the fact that errors inevitably crept into texts as generations of scribes reproduced each other's manuscripts. For example, Josephus employed scribes to copy his Antiquities of the Jews. As the scribes copied the Antiquities, they made mistakes. The copies of these copies also had the mistakes. The errors tend to form "families" of manuscripts: scribe A will introduce mistakes which are not in the manuscript of scribe B, and over time the "families" of texts descended from A and B will diverge further and further as more mistakes are introduced by later scribes, but will always be identifiable as descended from one or the other. Textual criticism studies the differences between these families to piece together a good idea of what the original looked like. The more surviving copies, the more accurately can they deduce information about the original text and about "family histories".
Textual criticism is a rigorously objective[clarification needed] discipline using a number of specialized methodologies, including eclecticism, stemmatics, copy-text editing and cladistics. A number of principles have also been introduced for use in deciding between variant manuscripts, such as Lectio difficilior potior: "The harder of two readings is to be preferred".[5] Nevertheless, there remains a strong element of subjectivity, areas where the scholar must decide his reading on the basis of taste or common-sense: Amos 6.12, for example, reads: "Does one plough with oxen?" The obvious answer is "yes", but the context of the passage seems to demand a "no"; the usual reading therefore is to amend this to, "Does one plough the sea with oxen?" The amendment has a basis in the text, which is believed to be corrupted, but is nevertheless a matter of judgement.[6]
Source criticism[edit]
Source criticism is the search for the original sources which lie behind a given biblical text. It can be traced back to the 17th-century French priest Richard Simon, and its most influential product is Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1878), whose "insight and clarity of expression have left their mark indelibly on modern biblical studies".[7] An example of source criticism is the study of the Synoptic problem. Critics noticed that the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were very similar, indeed, at times identical. The dominant theory to account for the duplication is called the two-source hypothesis. This suggests that Mark was the first gospel to be written, and that it was probably based on a combination of early oral and written material. Matthew and Luke were written at a later time, and relied primarily on two different sources: Mark and a written collection of Jesus's sayings, which has been given the name Q by scholars. This latter document has now been lost, but at least some of its material can be deduced indirectly, namely through the material that is common in Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark. In addition to Mark and Q, the writers of Matthew and Luke made some use of additional sources, which would account for the material that is unique to each of them.
Form criticism and tradition history[edit]
Form criticism breaks the Bible down into sections (pericopes, stories) which are analyzed and categorized by genres (prose or verse, letters, laws, court archives, war hymns, poems of lament, etc.). The form critic then theorizes on the pericope's Sitz im Leben ("setting in life"), the setting in which it was composed and, especially, used.[8] Tradition history is a specific aspect of form criticism which aims at tracing the way in which the pericopes entered the larger units of the biblical canon, and especially the way in which they made the transition from oral to written form. The belief in the priority, stability, and even detectability, of oral traditions is now recognised to be so deeply questionable as to render tradition history largely useless, but form criticism itself continues to develop as a viable methodology in biblical studies.[9]
Redaction criticism[edit]
Redaction criticism studies "the collection, arrangement, editing, and modification of sources", and is frequently used to reconstruct the community and purposes of the authors of the text.[10] It is based on the comparison of differences between manuscripts and their theological significance.[11]
Canonical criticism[edit]
Associated particularly with the name of Brevard S. Childs, who has written prolifically on the subject, canonical criticism is "an examination of the final form of the text as a totality, as well as the process leading to it".[12] Where previous criticism asked questions about the origins, structure and history of the text, canonical criticism addresses questions of meaning, both for the community (and communities—subsequent communities are regarded as being as important as the original community for which it was produced) which used it, and in the context of the wider canon of which it forms a part.[1]
Rhetorical criticism[edit]
Rhetorical criticism of the Bible dates back to at least Saint Augustine. Modern application of techniques of rhetorical analysis to biblical texts dates to James Muilenberg in 1968 as a corrective to form criticism, which Muilenberg saw as too generalized and insufficiently specific. For Muilenberg, rhetorical criticism emphasized the unique and unrepeatable message of the writer or speaker as addressed to his audience, including especially the techniques and devices which went into crafting the biblical narrative as it was heard (or read) by its audience. "What Muilenberg called rhetorical criticism was not exactly the same as what secular literary critics called rhetorical criticism, and when biblical scholars became interested in "rhetorical criticism", they did not limit themselves to Muilenberg's definition...In some cases it is difficult to distinguish between rhetorical criticism and literary criticism, or other disciplines". Unlike canonical criticism, rhetorical criticism (at least as defined by Muilenberg) takes a special interest in the relationship between the biblical text and its intended audience within the context of the communal life setting. Rhetorical criticism asks how the text functions for its audience, including especially its original audience: to teach, persuade, guide, exhort, reproach, or inspire, and it concentrates especially on identifying and elucidating unique features of the situation, including both the techniques manifest in the text itself and the relevant features of the cultural setting, through which this purpose is pursued.[13]
Narrative criticism[edit]
Narrative criticism is one of a number of modern forms of criticism based in contemporary literary theory and practice—in this case, from narratology. In common with other literary approaches (and in contrast to historical forms of criticism), narrative criticism treats the text as a unit, and focuses on narrative structure and composition, plot development, themes and motifs, characters, and characterization.[14] Narrative criticism is a complex field, but some central concerns include the reliability of the narrator, the question of authorial intent (expressed in terms of the context in which the text was written and its presumed intended audience), and the implications of multiple interpretation—i.e., an awareness that a narrative is capable of more than one interpretation, and thus of the implications of each.[15]
Psychological criticism[edit]
Psychological biblical criticism is a perspective rather than a method. It discusses the psychological dimensions of the authors of the text, the material they wish to communicate to their audience, and the reflections and meditations of the reader.
Socio-scientific criticism[edit]
Socio-scientific criticism (also known as socio-historical criticism and social-world criticism) is a contemporary form of multidisciplinary criticism drawing on the social sciences, especially anthropology and sociology. A typical study will draw on studies of contemporary nomadism, shamanism, tribalism, spirit-possession, and millenarianism to illuminate similar passages described in biblical texts. Socioscientific criticism is thus concerned with the historical world behind the text rather than the historical world in the text.[16]
Postmodernist criticism[edit]



 The "Tomb of Joshua" at Kifl Haris, a Palestinian village located northwest of the Israeli settlement of Ariel in the West Bank. Postmodernist criticism frequently locates biblical references in a modern setting.
Postmodernist biblical criticism treats the same general topics addressed in broader postmodernist scholarship, "including author, autobiography, culture criticism, deconstruction, ethics, fantasy, gender, ideology, politics, postcolonialism, and so on". It asks questions like: What are we to make, ethically speaking, of the program of ethnic cleansing described in the book of Joshua? What does the social construction of gender mean for the depiction of male and female roles in the Bible?[17]
In textual criticism, postmodernist criticism rejects the idea of an original text (the traditional quest of textual criticism, which marginalised all non-original manuscripts), and treats all manuscripts as equally valuable; in the "higher criticism" it brings new perspectives to theology, Israelite history, hermeneutics, and ethics.[18]
Feminist exegesis[edit]
Feminist criticism of the Bible utilizes the same means and essentially strives for the same ends as feminist literary criticism. It is therefore made up of a variety of peoples, including, but not limited to, Jews, people of color, and feminist Christians such as Elisabeth Fiorenza.
New Testament authenticity and the historical Jesus[edit]
Multiple attestation[edit]
The criterion of multiple attestation or "independent attestation" is an important tool used by scholars. Simply put, the more independent witnesses that report an event or saying, the better.
The gospels are not always independent of each other. There is a possibility that Matthew and Luke copied contents from Mark's gospel.[19] There are, however, at least four early, independent sources. The criterion of multiple attestation focuses on the sayings or deeds of Jesus that are attested to in more than one independent literary source such as the Apostle Paul, Josephus, Q, and/or the Gospel of the Hebrews. The force of this criterion is increased if a given motif or theme is also found in different literary forms such as parables, dispute stories, miracle stories, prophecy, and/or aphorism.[20][21]
Multiple attestation has a certain kind of objectivity. Given the independence of the sources, satisfaction of the criterion makes it harder to maintain that it was an invention of the Church.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Tendencies of the developing tradition[edit]
It is important that scholars research the earliest testimonies. To do this, they need to figure out the earliest gospel and the earliest parts of the gospels. Ideally, this material would come from eyewitnesses, but that is not always possible.
The writings of the Church Fathers are helpful in this regard. They wrote that the Hebrew Gospel was the first written while the Gospel of John was later. Also, because certain "laws" govern the transmission of tradition during the oral period, we can, by understanding these "laws", determine which tradition is early and which is late.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]
Embarrassment[edit]
The criterion of embarrassment, also known as the "criterion of dissimilarity", is an analytical tool that biblical scholars use in assessing whether the New Testament accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically accurate. Simply put, trust the embarrassing material. If something is awkward for an author to say and he does anyway, it is more likely to be true.[30]
The essence of the criterion of embarrassment is that the Early Church would hardly have gone out of its way to "create" or "falsify" historical material that only embarrassed its author or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Gospels.
The evolution of the depiction of the Baptism of Jesus exhibits the criterion of embarrassment. In the Gospel of the Hebrews, Jesus is but a man (see adoptionism) submitting to another man for the forgiveness of the "sin of ignorance" (a lesser sin, but sin nonetheless). Matthew's description of the Baptism adds John's statement to Jesus: "I should be baptized by you", attempting to do away with the embarrassment of John baptising Jesus, implying John's seniority. Similarly, it resolves the embarrassment of Jesus undergoing baptism "for the forgiveness of sin", the purpose of John's baptising in Mark, by omitting this phrase from John's proclamations. The Gospel of Luke says only that Jesus was baptized, without explicitly asserting that John performed the baptism. The Gospel of John goes further and simply omits the whole story of the Baptism. This might show a progression of the Evangelists attempting to explain, and then suppress, a story that was seen as embarrassing to the early church.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Coherence[edit]
The Criterion of coherence (also called consistency or conformity) can be used only when other material has been identified as authentic. This criterion holds that a saying and action attributed to Jesus may be accepted as authentic if it coheres with other sayings and actions already established as authentic. While this criterion cannot be used alone, it can broaden the database for what Jesus actually said and did.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
The Crucifixion[edit]
The criterion of the Crucifixion emphasizes that Jesus met a violent death at the hands of Jewish and Roman officials and that the authentic words and actions of Jesus would alienate people, especially powerful people.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Semitisms[edit]
Since Jesus spoke in Aramaic, traces of Aramaic in the Gospels argue in favor of a primitive tradition that may go back to Jesus. Semitisms are structured according to general rules that allow Hebrew speakers and hearers to say and hear things according to predictable patterns. Hebrew and Aramaic are linguistically very closely related and they follow similar elementary rules. For example, the pun in Matt 23:24, "straining out the gnat (galma) and swallowing a camel (gamla)" points in the direction of the historical Jesus.[22][31]
Sitz im Leben[edit]
Main article: Sitz im Leben
The sayings and actions of the historical Jesus must reflect the Sitz im Leben or the concrete social, political, economic, agricultural, and religious conditions of ancient Palestine, while sayings and actions of Jesus that reflect social, political, economic, agricultural, or religious conditions that existed only outside Palestine or only after the death of Jesus are to be considered inauthentic.[20][21][23][24][25][26][27][28][32]
Notable biblical scholars[edit]
William Albright (1891–1971): Professor at Johns Hopkins University and the founder of American biblical archaeology
Albrecht Alt (1883–1956): prominent in early debates about the religion of the biblical patriarchs; he was also an important influence on the generation of mid-20th century German scholars like Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad
Jean Astruc (1684–1776): early French biblical critic, who adapted source criticism to the study of Genesis
Margaret Barker (1944–): maintains that the polytheistic practices of the First Jewish Temple survived and influenced gnosticism and early Christianity
Walter Bauer (1877–1960): redefined the parameters of orthodoxy and heresy with his multiregional hypothesis for the origins of early Christianity
F. C. Baur (1792–1860): explored the secular history of the primitive church
Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884–1976): New Testament scholar who defined an almost complete split between history and faith, called demythology
D. A. Carson (1946–): Canadian New Testament scholar of the Gospel of John
John J. Collins (1946–): Irish scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism; he has worked extensively on Jewish messianism and apocalypticism
Frank Moore Cross (1921–2012): American biblical scholar and Harvard professor notable for his interpretations of the Deuteronomistic History, the Pentateuch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as his work in Northwest Semitic Epigraphy
William G. Dever (1933–): American biblical archaeologist, known for his contributions to the understanding of early Israel
Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827): applied source criticism to the entire Bible, decided against Mosaic authorship
Alvar Ellegård (1919–2008): linguist who reordered the chronology of New Testament texts and a proponent of the "Jesus Myth Theory"
Bart D. Ehrman (1955–): University of North Carolina professor, who has examined issues of textual corruption and authorship in New Testament and Early Christian texts
Israel Finkelstein (1949–): Israeli archaeologist and Professor at Tel Aviv University, an advocate for re-dating remains previously ascribed to King Solomon to the rule of the Omrides
Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812): pioneered the Griesbach hypothesis, which supports the primacy of the Gospel of Matthew
Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932): father of form criticism, the study of the oral traditions behind the text of the Pentateuch
Niels Peter Lemche (1945– ): biblical scholar at the University of Copenhagen associated with biblical minimalism, which warns against uncritical acceptance of the Bible as history
Bruce Metzger (1914–2007): biblical scholar sometimes referred to as "the dean" of New Testament textual criticism and wrote the definitive The Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 1964)
Martin Noth (1902–1968): developed tradition history and scholar on the origins of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History
Robert M. Price ( 1954–): American theologian and philosopher
Rolf Rendtorff (1925–): German critic who advanced an influential non-documentary hypothesis for the origins of the Pentateuch
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834): German theologian and philosopher whose theoretical hermeneutics underlie much of modern biblical exegesis
Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965): German theologian who was a pioneer in the quest for the historical Jesus
John Van Seters (1935–): American Hebrew Bible scholar who favors a supplementary model for the creation of the Pentateuch
Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677): Dutch philosopher, who collected discrepancies, contradictions, and anachronisms from the Torah to show that it could not have been written by Moses
Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789): leading French/German encyclopedist, published anonymously in Amsterdam in 1769 "Ecce Homo: The History of Jesus of Nazareth, a Critical Inquiry", the first Life of Jesus describing him as a mere historical man. Translated into English by George Houston and published by him in Edinburgh, 1799, London, 1813, (for which "blasphemy" Houston was condemned to two years in prison), and New York, 1827
David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874): German critic who published influential work on the historical origins of Christian beliefs, most notably in his Das Leben Jesu
Thomas L. Thompson (1939–): outspoken critic of Albright's conclusions about archaeology and the historicity of the Pentateuch
Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918): German biblical critic and popularizer of a four-source documentary hypothesis
Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849): early German contributor to higher criticism and the study of Pentateuchal origins
Joseph Wheless (1868–1950): American lawyer who traced origins of the scriptures, examining original Hebrew and Greek meanings, and the translations into Latin and English
R. N. Whybray (1923–1997): critiqued the assumptions of source criticism underlying the documentary hypothesis
N. T. Wright (1948-):a retired Anglican bishop and current professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews, Wright is known for the New Perspective on Paul and his Christian Origins and the Question of God series.[33][34]
See also[edit]
Detailed Christian timeline
Essays and Reviews
Gospel harmony
Christian heresy in the modern era - theologians tried for supporting biblical criticism
Historical method
New Testament places associated with Jesus
Pentateuchal criticism
Parallelomania
Timeline of the Bible
Notes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1985
2.Jump up ^ Fogarty, page 40.
3.Jump up ^ Encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, 1943.
4.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article III, section 110
5.Jump up ^ Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) published several editions of the New Testament. In his 1796 edition, he established fifteen critical rules, including a variant of Bengel's rule, Lectio difficilior potior, "the hardest reading is best." Another was Lectio brevior praeferenda, "the shorter reading is best," based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete. "Critical Rules of Johann Albrecht Bengel". Bible-researcher.com. Archived from the original on 13 February 2010. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
6.Jump up ^ David J. A. Clines, "Methods in Old Testament Study", section Textual Criticism, in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 23–45.
7.Jump up ^ Antony F. Campbell, SJ, "Preparatory Issues in Approaching Biblical Texts", in The Hebrew Bible in Modern Study, p.6. Campbell renames source criticism as "origin criticism".
8.Jump up ^ Bibledudes.com
9.Jump up ^ Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, 2003
10.Jump up ^ Religious Studies Department, Santa Clara University.
11.Jump up ^ Redaction Criticism.
12.Jump up ^ Norman K. Gottwald, "Social Matrix and Canonical Shape", Theology Today, October 1985.
13.Jump up ^ M.D. Morrison, "Rhetorical Criticism of the Hebrew Bible"
14.Jump up ^ Johannes C. De Klerk, "Situating biblical narrative studies in literary theory and literary approaches", Religion & Theology 4/3 (1997).
15.Jump up ^ Christopher Heard, "Narrative Criticism and the Hebrew Scriptures: A Review and Assessment", Restoration Quarterly, Vol. 38/No.1 (1996)
16.Jump up ^ Frank S. Frick, Response: Reconstructing Israel's Ancient World, SBL[dead link]
17.Jump up ^ David L. Barr, review of A. K. M. Adam (ed.), Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, 2000
18.Jump up ^ David J. A. Clines, "The Pyramid and the Net", On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).
19.Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14 Google Link
20.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14, 61-77
21.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Yale University Press, 2009.
22.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Maureen W. Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul: a comparison, Volume 147, Mohr Siebeck Pub, 2002. pp 54-56
23.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Blue Butler Education, Historical Study of Jesus of Nazareth: An Introduction
24.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f N. S. Gill, Discussion of the Historical Jesus
25.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford, 1999. pp 90–91.
26.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday, 1991. v. 1, pp 174–175, 317
27.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).
28.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Gerd Thiessen & Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria (Westminster: John Knox Press, 2002).
29.Jump up ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2009. pp 1-118
30.Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14
31.Jump up ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2009. pp 127-128
32.Jump up ^ Maureen W. Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul: A Comparison, Volume 147, Mohr Siebeck Pub, 2002. p 55
33.Jump up ^ [1]
34.Jump up ^ [2]
Further reading[edit]
Barton, John (1984). "Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, Philadelphia, Westminster, ISBN 0-664-25724-0".
Barenboim Peter, Biblical Roots of Separation of Powers, Moscow : Letny Sad, 2005, ISBN 5-94381-123-0, http://lccn.loc.gov/2006400578
Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Petersen (1999). A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, ISBN 0-687-01348-8.
Coggins, R. J., and J. L. Houlden, eds. (1990). Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International. ISBN 0-334-00294-X.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0.
Fuller, Reginald H. (1965). The Foundations of New Testament Christology. Scribners. ISBN 0-684-15532-X.
Goldingay, John (1990). "Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity, ISBN 1-894667-18-2".
Hayes, John H., and Carl R. Holladay (1987). "Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook, Rev. ed. Atlanta, GA, John Knox, ISBN 0-8042-0031-9".
McKenzie, Steven L., and Stephen R. Haynes, eds. (1993). "To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications, Louisville, KY, Westminster/John Knox, ISBN 0-664-25784-4".
Levenson, Jon D. The Hebrew Bible, The Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies, 1993, Westminister/John Knox Press, ISBN 0-664-25407-1
Rogerson, John (1984). Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century. ISBN 978-0-8006-0737-1.
Morgan, Robert, and John Barton (1988). "Biblical Interpretation, New York, Oxford University, ISBN 0-19-213257-1".
Soulen, Richard N. (1981). "Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 2nd ed. Atlanta, Ga, John Knox, ISBN 0-664-22314-1".
Stuart, Douglas (1984). "Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2nd ed., Philadelphia, Westminster, ISBN 0-664-24320-7".
Shinan, Avigdor, and Yair Zakovitch (2004). That's Not What the Good Book Says, Miskal-Yediot Ahronot Books and Chemed Books, Tel-Aviv
External links[edit]
David J. A. Clines, "Possibilities and Priorities of Biblical Interpretation in an International Perspective", in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 46–68 See Section 6, Future Trends in Biblical Interpretation, overview of some current trends in biblical criticism.
Philip Davies, review of John J. Collins, "The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age", 2005 Reviews a survey of postmodernist biblical criticism.
Allen P. Ross (Beeson Divinity School, Samford University), "The Study of Textual Criticism" Guide to the methodology of textual criticism.
Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, 2003 Discusses contemporary form criticism.
Exploring Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations on the Internet Introduction to biblical criticism
Library of latest modern books of biblical studies and biblical criticism



[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: Biblical criticism
Christian terminology









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
Azərbaycanca
Български
Català
Čeština
Deutsch
Esperanto
Français
한국어
Interlingua
Italiano
Magyar
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Plattdüütsch
Polski
Português
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
Türkçe
ייִדיש
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 3 April 2015, at 03:57.
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_criticism















Biblical criticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document. For criticisms made against the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance, see Criticism of the Bible.



 The Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible
Biblical criticism is the scholarly "study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning judgments about these writings".[1] Viewing biblical texts as having human rather than supernatural origins, it asks when and where a particular text originated; how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced; what influences were at work in its production; what sources were used in its composition; and what message it was intended to convey. It will vary slightly depending on whether the focus is on the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, the letters of New Testament or the Canonical gospels. It also plays an important role in the quest for a Historical Jesus.
It also addresses the physical text, including the meaning of the words and the way in which they are used, its preservation, history and integrity. Biblical criticism draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archaeology, anthropology, folklore, linguistics, Oral Tradition studies, and historical and religious studies.



Contents  [hide]
1 Background
2 History 2.1 Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
2.2 New Testament
3 Methods and perspectives 3.1 Textual criticism
3.2 Source criticism
3.3 Form criticism and tradition history
3.4 Redaction criticism
3.5 Canonical criticism
3.6 Rhetorical criticism
3.7 Narrative criticism
3.8 Psychological criticism
3.9 Socio-scientific criticism
3.10 Postmodernist criticism
3.11 Feminist exegesis
4 New Testament authenticity and the historical Jesus 4.1 Multiple attestation
4.2 Tendencies of the developing tradition
4.3 Embarrassment
4.4 Coherence
4.5 The Crucifixion
4.6 Semitisms
4.7 Sitz im Leben
5 Notable biblical scholars
6 See also
7 Notes
8 Further reading
9 External links

Background[edit]



 Andover-Harvard Theological Library, Harvard Divinity School.
Biblical criticism, defined as the treatment of biblical texts as natural rather than supernatural artifacts, grew out of the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 19th century it was divided between the higher criticism, the study of the composition and history of biblical texts, and lower criticism, the close examination of the text to establish their original or "correct" readings. These terms are largely no longer used, and contemporary criticism has seen the rise of new perspectives which draw on literary and multidisciplinary sociological approaches to address the meaning(s) of texts and the wider world in which they were conceived.
A division is still sometimes made between historical criticism and literary criticism. Historical criticism seeks to locate the text in history: it asks such questions as when the text was written, who the author/s might have been, and what history might be reconstructed from the answers. Literary criticism asks what audience the authors wrote for, their presumptive purpose, and the development of the text over time.
Historical criticism was the dominant form of criticism until the late 20th century, when biblical critics became interested in questions aimed more at the meaning of the text than its origins and developed methods drawn from mainstream literary criticism. The distinction is frequently referred to as one between diachronic and synchronic forms of criticism, the former concerned the development of texts through time, the latter treating texts as they exist at a particular moment, frequently the so-called "final form", meaning the Bible text as we have it today.
History[edit]
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
   
Both Old Testament and New Testament criticism originated in the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries and developed within the context of the scientific approach to the humanities (especially history) which grew during the 19th. Studies of the Old and New Testaments were often independent of each other, largely due to the difficulty of any single scholar having a sufficient grasp of the many languages required or of the cultural background for the different periods in which texts had their origins.
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament[edit]



 Title page of Richard Simon's "Critical History" (1685), an early work of biblical criticism.
Modern biblical criticism begins with the 17th century philosophers and theologians—Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, Richard Simon and others—who began to ask questions about the origin of the biblical text, especially the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament, i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). They asked specifically who had written these books; according to tradition their author was Moses, but these critics found contradictions and inconsistencies in the text that they concluded made Mosaic authorship improbable. In the 18th century Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, set out to refute these critics. Borrowing methods of textual criticism already in use to investigate Greek and Roman texts, he discovered what he believed were two distinct documents within Genesis. These, he felt, were the original scrolls written by Moses, much as the four Gospel writers had produced four separate but complementary accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. Later generations, he believed, had conflated these original documents to produce the modern book of Genesis, producing the inconsistencies and contradictions noted by Hobbes and Spinoza.
Astruc's methods were adopted by German scholars such as Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827) and Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849) in a movement which became known as the higher criticism (to distinguish it from the far longer-established close examination and comparison of individual manuscripts, called the lower criticism); this school reached its apogee with the influential synthesis of Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) in the 1870s, at which point it seemed to many that the Bible had at last been fully explained as a human document.
The implications of "higher criticism" were not welcomed by many religious scholars, not least the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903) condemned secular biblical scholarship in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus;[2] but in 1943 Pope Pius XII gave license to the new scholarship in his encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu: "textual criticism ... [is] quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books...Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed".[3] Today the modern Catechism states: "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression".[4]
New Testament[edit]



Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965). His The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906) demonstrated that 19th century "lives of Jesus" were reflections of the authors' own historical and social contexts.
The seminal figure in New Testament criticism was Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), who applied to it the methodology of Greek and Latin textual studies and became convinced that very little of what it said could be accepted as incontrovertibly true. Reimarus's conclusions appealed to the rationalism of 18th century intellectuals, but were deeply troubling to contemporary believers. Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789) - "Ecce Homo -The History of Jesus of Nazareth, a Critical Inquiry" (1769), the first Life of Jesus described as a mere historical man, published anonymously in Amsterdam. George Houston translated the work into English—published in Edinburgh, 1799, London, 1813, and New York in 1827—for which "blasphemy" Houston was condemned to two years in prison. In the 19th century important scholarship was done by David Strauss, Ernest Renan, Johannes Weiss, Albert Schweitzer and others, all of whom investigated the "historical Jesus" within the Gospel narratives. In a different field the work of H. J. Holtzmann was significant: he established a chronology for the composition of the various books of the New Testament which formed the basis for future research on this subject, and established the two-source hypothesis (the hypothesis that the gospels of Matthew and Luke drew on the gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as Q). By the first half of the 20th century a new generation of scholars including Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann, in Germany, Roy Harrisville and others in North America had decided that the quest for the Jesus of history had reached a dead end. Barth and Bultmann accepted that little could be said with certainty about the historical Jesus, and concentrated instead on the kerygma, or message, of the New Testament. The questions they addressed were: What was Jesus’s key message? How was that message related to Judaism? Does that message speak to our reality today?
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 revitalised interest in the possible contribution archaeology could make to the understanding of the New Testament. Joachim Jeremias and C. H. Dodd produced linguistic studies which tentatively identified layers within the Gospels that could be ascribed to Jesus, to the authors, and to the early Church; Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan assessed Jesus in the cultural milieu of first-century Judea; and the scholars of the Jesus Seminar assessed the individual tropes of the Gospels to arrive at a consensus on what could and could not be accepted as historical.
Contemporary New Testament criticism continues to follow the synthesising trend set during the latter half of the 20th century. There continues to be a strong interest in recovering the "historical Jesus", but this now tends to set the search in terms of Jesus' Jewishness (Bruce Chilton, Geza Vermes and others) and his formation by the political and religious currents of first-century Palestine (Marcus Borg).
Methods and perspectives[edit]



Source criticism: diagram of the two-source hypothesis, an explanation for the relationship of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.
The critical methods and perspectives now to be found are numerous, and the following overview should not be regarded as comprehensive.
Textual criticism[edit]
Textual criticism (sometimes still referred to as "lower criticism") refers to the examination of the text itself to identify its provenance or to trace its history. It takes as its basis the fact that errors inevitably crept into texts as generations of scribes reproduced each other's manuscripts. For example, Josephus employed scribes to copy his Antiquities of the Jews. As the scribes copied the Antiquities, they made mistakes. The copies of these copies also had the mistakes. The errors tend to form "families" of manuscripts: scribe A will introduce mistakes which are not in the manuscript of scribe B, and over time the "families" of texts descended from A and B will diverge further and further as more mistakes are introduced by later scribes, but will always be identifiable as descended from one or the other. Textual criticism studies the differences between these families to piece together a good idea of what the original looked like. The more surviving copies, the more accurately can they deduce information about the original text and about "family histories".
Textual criticism is a rigorously objective[clarification needed] discipline using a number of specialized methodologies, including eclecticism, stemmatics, copy-text editing and cladistics. A number of principles have also been introduced for use in deciding between variant manuscripts, such as Lectio difficilior potior: "The harder of two readings is to be preferred".[5] Nevertheless, there remains a strong element of subjectivity, areas where the scholar must decide his reading on the basis of taste or common-sense: Amos 6.12, for example, reads: "Does one plough with oxen?" The obvious answer is "yes", but the context of the passage seems to demand a "no"; the usual reading therefore is to amend this to, "Does one plough the sea with oxen?" The amendment has a basis in the text, which is believed to be corrupted, but is nevertheless a matter of judgement.[6]
Source criticism[edit]
Source criticism is the search for the original sources which lie behind a given biblical text. It can be traced back to the 17th-century French priest Richard Simon, and its most influential product is Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1878), whose "insight and clarity of expression have left their mark indelibly on modern biblical studies".[7] An example of source criticism is the study of the Synoptic problem. Critics noticed that the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were very similar, indeed, at times identical. The dominant theory to account for the duplication is called the two-source hypothesis. This suggests that Mark was the first gospel to be written, and that it was probably based on a combination of early oral and written material. Matthew and Luke were written at a later time, and relied primarily on two different sources: Mark and a written collection of Jesus's sayings, which has been given the name Q by scholars. This latter document has now been lost, but at least some of its material can be deduced indirectly, namely through the material that is common in Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark. In addition to Mark and Q, the writers of Matthew and Luke made some use of additional sources, which would account for the material that is unique to each of them.
Form criticism and tradition history[edit]
Form criticism breaks the Bible down into sections (pericopes, stories) which are analyzed and categorized by genres (prose or verse, letters, laws, court archives, war hymns, poems of lament, etc.). The form critic then theorizes on the pericope's Sitz im Leben ("setting in life"), the setting in which it was composed and, especially, used.[8] Tradition history is a specific aspect of form criticism which aims at tracing the way in which the pericopes entered the larger units of the biblical canon, and especially the way in which they made the transition from oral to written form. The belief in the priority, stability, and even detectability, of oral traditions is now recognised to be so deeply questionable as to render tradition history largely useless, but form criticism itself continues to develop as a viable methodology in biblical studies.[9]
Redaction criticism[edit]
Redaction criticism studies "the collection, arrangement, editing, and modification of sources", and is frequently used to reconstruct the community and purposes of the authors of the text.[10] It is based on the comparison of differences between manuscripts and their theological significance.[11]
Canonical criticism[edit]
Associated particularly with the name of Brevard S. Childs, who has written prolifically on the subject, canonical criticism is "an examination of the final form of the text as a totality, as well as the process leading to it".[12] Where previous criticism asked questions about the origins, structure and history of the text, canonical criticism addresses questions of meaning, both for the community (and communities—subsequent communities are regarded as being as important as the original community for which it was produced) which used it, and in the context of the wider canon of which it forms a part.[1]
Rhetorical criticism[edit]
Rhetorical criticism of the Bible dates back to at least Saint Augustine. Modern application of techniques of rhetorical analysis to biblical texts dates to James Muilenberg in 1968 as a corrective to form criticism, which Muilenberg saw as too generalized and insufficiently specific. For Muilenberg, rhetorical criticism emphasized the unique and unrepeatable message of the writer or speaker as addressed to his audience, including especially the techniques and devices which went into crafting the biblical narrative as it was heard (or read) by its audience. "What Muilenberg called rhetorical criticism was not exactly the same as what secular literary critics called rhetorical criticism, and when biblical scholars became interested in "rhetorical criticism", they did not limit themselves to Muilenberg's definition...In some cases it is difficult to distinguish between rhetorical criticism and literary criticism, or other disciplines". Unlike canonical criticism, rhetorical criticism (at least as defined by Muilenberg) takes a special interest in the relationship between the biblical text and its intended audience within the context of the communal life setting. Rhetorical criticism asks how the text functions for its audience, including especially its original audience: to teach, persuade, guide, exhort, reproach, or inspire, and it concentrates especially on identifying and elucidating unique features of the situation, including both the techniques manifest in the text itself and the relevant features of the cultural setting, through which this purpose is pursued.[13]
Narrative criticism[edit]
Narrative criticism is one of a number of modern forms of criticism based in contemporary literary theory and practice—in this case, from narratology. In common with other literary approaches (and in contrast to historical forms of criticism), narrative criticism treats the text as a unit, and focuses on narrative structure and composition, plot development, themes and motifs, characters, and characterization.[14] Narrative criticism is a complex field, but some central concerns include the reliability of the narrator, the question of authorial intent (expressed in terms of the context in which the text was written and its presumed intended audience), and the implications of multiple interpretation—i.e., an awareness that a narrative is capable of more than one interpretation, and thus of the implications of each.[15]
Psychological criticism[edit]
Psychological biblical criticism is a perspective rather than a method. It discusses the psychological dimensions of the authors of the text, the material they wish to communicate to their audience, and the reflections and meditations of the reader.
Socio-scientific criticism[edit]
Socio-scientific criticism (also known as socio-historical criticism and social-world criticism) is a contemporary form of multidisciplinary criticism drawing on the social sciences, especially anthropology and sociology. A typical study will draw on studies of contemporary nomadism, shamanism, tribalism, spirit-possession, and millenarianism to illuminate similar passages described in biblical texts. Socioscientific criticism is thus concerned with the historical world behind the text rather than the historical world in the text.[16]
Postmodernist criticism[edit]



 The "Tomb of Joshua" at Kifl Haris, a Palestinian village located northwest of the Israeli settlement of Ariel in the West Bank. Postmodernist criticism frequently locates biblical references in a modern setting.
Postmodernist biblical criticism treats the same general topics addressed in broader postmodernist scholarship, "including author, autobiography, culture criticism, deconstruction, ethics, fantasy, gender, ideology, politics, postcolonialism, and so on". It asks questions like: What are we to make, ethically speaking, of the program of ethnic cleansing described in the book of Joshua? What does the social construction of gender mean for the depiction of male and female roles in the Bible?[17]
In textual criticism, postmodernist criticism rejects the idea of an original text (the traditional quest of textual criticism, which marginalised all non-original manuscripts), and treats all manuscripts as equally valuable; in the "higher criticism" it brings new perspectives to theology, Israelite history, hermeneutics, and ethics.[18]
Feminist exegesis[edit]
Feminist criticism of the Bible utilizes the same means and essentially strives for the same ends as feminist literary criticism. It is therefore made up of a variety of peoples, including, but not limited to, Jews, people of color, and feminist Christians such as Elisabeth Fiorenza.
New Testament authenticity and the historical Jesus[edit]
Multiple attestation[edit]
The criterion of multiple attestation or "independent attestation" is an important tool used by scholars. Simply put, the more independent witnesses that report an event or saying, the better.
The gospels are not always independent of each other. There is a possibility that Matthew and Luke copied contents from Mark's gospel.[19] There are, however, at least four early, independent sources. The criterion of multiple attestation focuses on the sayings or deeds of Jesus that are attested to in more than one independent literary source such as the Apostle Paul, Josephus, Q, and/or the Gospel of the Hebrews. The force of this criterion is increased if a given motif or theme is also found in different literary forms such as parables, dispute stories, miracle stories, prophecy, and/or aphorism.[20][21]
Multiple attestation has a certain kind of objectivity. Given the independence of the sources, satisfaction of the criterion makes it harder to maintain that it was an invention of the Church.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Tendencies of the developing tradition[edit]
It is important that scholars research the earliest testimonies. To do this, they need to figure out the earliest gospel and the earliest parts of the gospels. Ideally, this material would come from eyewitnesses, but that is not always possible.
The writings of the Church Fathers are helpful in this regard. They wrote that the Hebrew Gospel was the first written while the Gospel of John was later. Also, because certain "laws" govern the transmission of tradition during the oral period, we can, by understanding these "laws", determine which tradition is early and which is late.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]
Embarrassment[edit]
The criterion of embarrassment, also known as the "criterion of dissimilarity", is an analytical tool that biblical scholars use in assessing whether the New Testament accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically accurate. Simply put, trust the embarrassing material. If something is awkward for an author to say and he does anyway, it is more likely to be true.[30]
The essence of the criterion of embarrassment is that the Early Church would hardly have gone out of its way to "create" or "falsify" historical material that only embarrassed its author or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Gospels.
The evolution of the depiction of the Baptism of Jesus exhibits the criterion of embarrassment. In the Gospel of the Hebrews, Jesus is but a man (see adoptionism) submitting to another man for the forgiveness of the "sin of ignorance" (a lesser sin, but sin nonetheless). Matthew's description of the Baptism adds John's statement to Jesus: "I should be baptized by you", attempting to do away with the embarrassment of John baptising Jesus, implying John's seniority. Similarly, it resolves the embarrassment of Jesus undergoing baptism "for the forgiveness of sin", the purpose of John's baptising in Mark, by omitting this phrase from John's proclamations. The Gospel of Luke says only that Jesus was baptized, without explicitly asserting that John performed the baptism. The Gospel of John goes further and simply omits the whole story of the Baptism. This might show a progression of the Evangelists attempting to explain, and then suppress, a story that was seen as embarrassing to the early church.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Coherence[edit]
The Criterion of coherence (also called consistency or conformity) can be used only when other material has been identified as authentic. This criterion holds that a saying and action attributed to Jesus may be accepted as authentic if it coheres with other sayings and actions already established as authentic. While this criterion cannot be used alone, it can broaden the database for what Jesus actually said and did.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
The Crucifixion[edit]
The criterion of the Crucifixion emphasizes that Jesus met a violent death at the hands of Jewish and Roman officials and that the authentic words and actions of Jesus would alienate people, especially powerful people.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Semitisms[edit]
Since Jesus spoke in Aramaic, traces of Aramaic in the Gospels argue in favor of a primitive tradition that may go back to Jesus. Semitisms are structured according to general rules that allow Hebrew speakers and hearers to say and hear things according to predictable patterns. Hebrew and Aramaic are linguistically very closely related and they follow similar elementary rules. For example, the pun in Matt 23:24, "straining out the gnat (galma) and swallowing a camel (gamla)" points in the direction of the historical Jesus.[22][31]
Sitz im Leben[edit]
Main article: Sitz im Leben
The sayings and actions of the historical Jesus must reflect the Sitz im Leben or the concrete social, political, economic, agricultural, and religious conditions of ancient Palestine, while sayings and actions of Jesus that reflect social, political, economic, agricultural, or religious conditions that existed only outside Palestine or only after the death of Jesus are to be considered inauthentic.[20][21][23][24][25][26][27][28][32]
Notable biblical scholars[edit]
William Albright (1891–1971): Professor at Johns Hopkins University and the founder of American biblical archaeology
Albrecht Alt (1883–1956): prominent in early debates about the religion of the biblical patriarchs; he was also an important influence on the generation of mid-20th century German scholars like Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad
Jean Astruc (1684–1776): early French biblical critic, who adapted source criticism to the study of Genesis
Margaret Barker (1944–): maintains that the polytheistic practices of the First Jewish Temple survived and influenced gnosticism and early Christianity
Walter Bauer (1877–1960): redefined the parameters of orthodoxy and heresy with his multiregional hypothesis for the origins of early Christianity
F. C. Baur (1792–1860): explored the secular history of the primitive church
Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884–1976): New Testament scholar who defined an almost complete split between history and faith, called demythology
D. A. Carson (1946–): Canadian New Testament scholar of the Gospel of John
John J. Collins (1946–): Irish scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism; he has worked extensively on Jewish messianism and apocalypticism
Frank Moore Cross (1921–2012): American biblical scholar and Harvard professor notable for his interpretations of the Deuteronomistic History, the Pentateuch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as his work in Northwest Semitic Epigraphy
William G. Dever (1933–): American biblical archaeologist, known for his contributions to the understanding of early Israel
Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827): applied source criticism to the entire Bible, decided against Mosaic authorship
Alvar Ellegård (1919–2008): linguist who reordered the chronology of New Testament texts and a proponent of the "Jesus Myth Theory"
Bart D. Ehrman (1955–): University of North Carolina professor, who has examined issues of textual corruption and authorship in New Testament and Early Christian texts
Israel Finkelstein (1949–): Israeli archaeologist and Professor at Tel Aviv University, an advocate for re-dating remains previously ascribed to King Solomon to the rule of the Omrides
Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812): pioneered the Griesbach hypothesis, which supports the primacy of the Gospel of Matthew
Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932): father of form criticism, the study of the oral traditions behind the text of the Pentateuch
Niels Peter Lemche (1945– ): biblical scholar at the University of Copenhagen associated with biblical minimalism, which warns against uncritical acceptance of the Bible as history
Bruce Metzger (1914–2007): biblical scholar sometimes referred to as "the dean" of New Testament textual criticism and wrote the definitive The Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 1964)
Martin Noth (1902–1968): developed tradition history and scholar on the origins of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History
Robert M. Price ( 1954–): American theologian and philosopher
Rolf Rendtorff (1925–): German critic who advanced an influential non-documentary hypothesis for the origins of the Pentateuch
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834): German theologian and philosopher whose theoretical hermeneutics underlie much of modern biblical exegesis
Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965): German theologian who was a pioneer in the quest for the historical Jesus
John Van Seters (1935–): American Hebrew Bible scholar who favors a supplementary model for the creation of the Pentateuch
Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677): Dutch philosopher, who collected discrepancies, contradictions, and anachronisms from the Torah to show that it could not have been written by Moses
Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789): leading French/German encyclopedist, published anonymously in Amsterdam in 1769 "Ecce Homo: The History of Jesus of Nazareth, a Critical Inquiry", the first Life of Jesus describing him as a mere historical man. Translated into English by George Houston and published by him in Edinburgh, 1799, London, 1813, (for which "blasphemy" Houston was condemned to two years in prison), and New York, 1827
David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874): German critic who published influential work on the historical origins of Christian beliefs, most notably in his Das Leben Jesu
Thomas L. Thompson (1939–): outspoken critic of Albright's conclusions about archaeology and the historicity of the Pentateuch
Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918): German biblical critic and popularizer of a four-source documentary hypothesis
Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849): early German contributor to higher criticism and the study of Pentateuchal origins
Joseph Wheless (1868–1950): American lawyer who traced origins of the scriptures, examining original Hebrew and Greek meanings, and the translations into Latin and English
R. N. Whybray (1923–1997): critiqued the assumptions of source criticism underlying the documentary hypothesis
N. T. Wright (1948-):a retired Anglican bishop and current professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews, Wright is known for the New Perspective on Paul and his Christian Origins and the Question of God series.[33][34]
See also[edit]
Detailed Christian timeline
Essays and Reviews
Gospel harmony
Christian heresy in the modern era - theologians tried for supporting biblical criticism
Historical method
New Testament places associated with Jesus
Pentateuchal criticism
Parallelomania
Timeline of the Bible
Notes[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1985
2.Jump up ^ Fogarty, page 40.
3.Jump up ^ Encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, 1943.
4.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article III, section 110
5.Jump up ^ Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) published several editions of the New Testament. In his 1796 edition, he established fifteen critical rules, including a variant of Bengel's rule, Lectio difficilior potior, "the hardest reading is best." Another was Lectio brevior praeferenda, "the shorter reading is best," based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete. "Critical Rules of Johann Albrecht Bengel". Bible-researcher.com. Archived from the original on 13 February 2010. Retrieved 2010-03-16.
6.Jump up ^ David J. A. Clines, "Methods in Old Testament Study", section Textual Criticism, in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 23–45.
7.Jump up ^ Antony F. Campbell, SJ, "Preparatory Issues in Approaching Biblical Texts", in The Hebrew Bible in Modern Study, p.6. Campbell renames source criticism as "origin criticism".
8.Jump up ^ Bibledudes.com
9.Jump up ^ Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, 2003
10.Jump up ^ Religious Studies Department, Santa Clara University.
11.Jump up ^ Redaction Criticism.
12.Jump up ^ Norman K. Gottwald, "Social Matrix and Canonical Shape", Theology Today, October 1985.
13.Jump up ^ M.D. Morrison, "Rhetorical Criticism of the Hebrew Bible"
14.Jump up ^ Johannes C. De Klerk, "Situating biblical narrative studies in literary theory and literary approaches", Religion & Theology 4/3 (1997).
15.Jump up ^ Christopher Heard, "Narrative Criticism and the Hebrew Scriptures: A Review and Assessment", Restoration Quarterly, Vol. 38/No.1 (1996)
16.Jump up ^ Frank S. Frick, Response: Reconstructing Israel's Ancient World, SBL[dead link]
17.Jump up ^ David L. Barr, review of A. K. M. Adam (ed.), Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, 2000
18.Jump up ^ David J. A. Clines, "The Pyramid and the Net", On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).
19.Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14 Google Link
20.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14, 61-77
21.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Yale University Press, 2009.
22.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Maureen W. Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul: a comparison, Volume 147, Mohr Siebeck Pub, 2002. pp 54-56
23.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Blue Butler Education, Historical Study of Jesus of Nazareth: An Introduction
24.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f N. S. Gill, Discussion of the Historical Jesus
25.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford, 1999. pp 90–91.
26.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday, 1991. v. 1, pp 174–175, 317
27.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).
28.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Gerd Thiessen & Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria (Westminster: John Knox Press, 2002).
29.Jump up ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2009. pp 1-118
30.Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14
31.Jump up ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2009. pp 127-128
32.Jump up ^ Maureen W. Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul: A Comparison, Volume 147, Mohr Siebeck Pub, 2002. p 55
33.Jump up ^ [1]
34.Jump up ^ [2]
Further reading[edit]
Barton, John (1984). "Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, Philadelphia, Westminster, ISBN 0-664-25724-0".
Barenboim Peter, Biblical Roots of Separation of Powers, Moscow : Letny Sad, 2005, ISBN 5-94381-123-0, http://lccn.loc.gov/2006400578
Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Petersen (1999). A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, ISBN 0-687-01348-8.
Coggins, R. J., and J. L. Houlden, eds. (1990). Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International. ISBN 0-334-00294-X.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0.
Fuller, Reginald H. (1965). The Foundations of New Testament Christology. Scribners. ISBN 0-684-15532-X.
Goldingay, John (1990). "Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity, ISBN 1-894667-18-2".
Hayes, John H., and Carl R. Holladay (1987). "Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook, Rev. ed. Atlanta, GA, John Knox, ISBN 0-8042-0031-9".
McKenzie, Steven L., and Stephen R. Haynes, eds. (1993). "To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications, Louisville, KY, Westminster/John Knox, ISBN 0-664-25784-4".
Levenson, Jon D. The Hebrew Bible, The Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies, 1993, Westminister/John Knox Press, ISBN 0-664-25407-1
Rogerson, John (1984). Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century. ISBN 978-0-8006-0737-1.
Morgan, Robert, and John Barton (1988). "Biblical Interpretation, New York, Oxford University, ISBN 0-19-213257-1".
Soulen, Richard N. (1981). "Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 2nd ed. Atlanta, Ga, John Knox, ISBN 0-664-22314-1".
Stuart, Douglas (1984). "Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2nd ed., Philadelphia, Westminster, ISBN 0-664-24320-7".
Shinan, Avigdor, and Yair Zakovitch (2004). That's Not What the Good Book Says, Miskal-Yediot Ahronot Books and Chemed Books, Tel-Aviv
External links[edit]
David J. A. Clines, "Possibilities and Priorities of Biblical Interpretation in an International Perspective", in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 46–68 See Section 6, Future Trends in Biblical Interpretation, overview of some current trends in biblical criticism.
Philip Davies, review of John J. Collins, "The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age", 2005 Reviews a survey of postmodernist biblical criticism.
Allen P. Ross (Beeson Divinity School, Samford University), "The Study of Textual Criticism" Guide to the methodology of textual criticism.
Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, 2003 Discusses contemporary form criticism.
Exploring Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations on the Internet Introduction to biblical criticism
Library of latest modern books of biblical studies and biblical criticism



[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: Biblical criticism
Christian terminology









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
Azərbaycanca
Български
Català
Čeština
Deutsch
Esperanto
Français
한국어
Interlingua
Italiano
Magyar
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Plattdüütsch
Polski
Português
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
Türkçe
ייִדיש
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 3 April 2015, at 03:57.
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_criticism














Biblical studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Bible study (disambiguation).
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 studies is the academic application of a set of diverse disciplines to the study of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the Bible.[1][2] For its theory and methods, the field draws on disciplines ranging from archaeology, literary criticism, history, philology, and social sciences.[1]
Many secular as well as religious universities and colleges offer courses in biblical studies, usually in departments of religious studies, theology, Judaic studies, history, or comparative literature. Biblical scholars do not necessarily have a faith commitment to the texts they study, but many do.



Contents  [hide]
1 Definition
2 Academic societies
3 Biblical criticism
4 History of the Bible
5 Original languages
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links

Definition[edit]
The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies defines the field as a set of various, and in some cases independent disciplines for the study of the collection of ancient texts generally known as the Bible.[1] These disciplines include but are not limited to archaeology, Egyptology, textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology.[1]
Academic societies[edit]
Several academic associations and societies promote research in the field. The largest is the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) with around 8,500 members in more than 80 countries. It publishes many books and journals in the biblical studies, including its flagship, the Journal of Biblical Literature. SBL hosts one academic conference in North America and another international conference each year, as well as smaller regional meetings.
Biblical criticism[edit]
The research of biblical scholars is frequently called biblical criticism. It does not presuppose, but also does not deny, belief in the supernatural origins of the scriptures. Instead, it applies to the Bible methods of textual analysis used in other disciplines of the humanities and social sciences. Many biblical scholars also interact with traditional Jewish and Christian interpreters and methods of interpretation, which may be called biblical exegesis or hermeneutics and history of interpretation or reception history.
History of the Bible[edit]
Historical research has often dominated modern biblical studies. Biblical scholars usually try to interpret a particular text within its original historical context and use whatever information is available to reconstruct that setting. Historical criticism aims to determine the provenance, authorship, and process by which ancient texts were composed. Famous theories of historical criticism include the documentary hypothesis which suggests that the Pentateuch was compiled from four different written sources, and different reconstructions of "the historical Jesus" based primarily on the differences among the canonical Gospels.
Original languages[edit]
Most of the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh, which is the basis of the Christian Old Testament, was written in Biblical Hebrew, though a few chapters were written in Biblical Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, with possible Aramaic undertones, as was the first translation of the Jewish Bible known as the Septuagint or Greek Old Testament. Therefore, Hebrew, Greek and sometimes Aramaic continue to be taught in most universities, colleges and seminaries with strong programs in biblical studies.
See also[edit]
The Bible and history
Biblical hermeneutics
Chronology of the Bible
Higher criticism
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies by J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu (May 18, 2006) ISBN 0199254257 page xvii
2.Jump up ^ Introduction to Biblical Studies, Second Edition by Steve Moyise (Oct 27, 2004) ISBN 0567083977 pages 11–12
Further reading[edit]
The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols., eds. P. R. Ackroyd, C. F. Evans, S. L. Greenslade and G. W. H. Lampe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963, 1969, 1970.
Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale, 1974.
Greenspahn, Frederick E. "Biblical Scholars, Medieval and Modern," in J. Neusner et al. (eds.), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 245–258.
Harrison, Peter. The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2001.
Harrisville, Roy A. & Walter Sundberg. The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Knight, Douglas A. and Gene M. Tucker, eds. The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Philadelphia: Fortress/Chico: Scholars Press, 1985.
Nicholson, Ernest W. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.
Noll, Mark A. Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America. Harper & Row, 1986.
Reventlow, Henning Graf. The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World. Tr. J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
Sherwood, Yvonne and Stephen D. Moore. The Invention of the Biblical Scholar: A Critical Manifesto. Fortress, 2011.
Sperling, S. David. Students of the Covenant: A History of Jewish Biblical Scholarship in North America. Atlanta Scholars Press, 1992.
Sugirtharajah, R.S. The Bible and the Third World: Precolonial, Colonial, and Postcolonial Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2001.
External links[edit]
Bible Studies - Staying in the Word
Society of Biblical Literature
AcademicBible.com from the German Bible Society
Wabash Center's Internet Guid to Religion: Bible



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christian theology







































































































































































































































































































































































































































































P christianity.svg





[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history















Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


































  



Categories: Biblical studies
Christian terminology



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
Български
Čeština
Deutsch
Français
한국어
Italiano
Magyar
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Svenska
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 12 December 2014, at 01:32.
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_studies














Biblical studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Bible study (disambiguation).
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 studies is the academic application of a set of diverse disciplines to the study of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the Bible.[1][2] For its theory and methods, the field draws on disciplines ranging from archaeology, literary criticism, history, philology, and social sciences.[1]
Many secular as well as religious universities and colleges offer courses in biblical studies, usually in departments of religious studies, theology, Judaic studies, history, or comparative literature. Biblical scholars do not necessarily have a faith commitment to the texts they study, but many do.



Contents  [hide]
1 Definition
2 Academic societies
3 Biblical criticism
4 History of the Bible
5 Original languages
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links

Definition[edit]
The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies defines the field as a set of various, and in some cases independent disciplines for the study of the collection of ancient texts generally known as the Bible.[1] These disciplines include but are not limited to archaeology, Egyptology, textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology.[1]
Academic societies[edit]
Several academic associations and societies promote research in the field. The largest is the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) with around 8,500 members in more than 80 countries. It publishes many books and journals in the biblical studies, including its flagship, the Journal of Biblical Literature. SBL hosts one academic conference in North America and another international conference each year, as well as smaller regional meetings.
Biblical criticism[edit]
The research of biblical scholars is frequently called biblical criticism. It does not presuppose, but also does not deny, belief in the supernatural origins of the scriptures. Instead, it applies to the Bible methods of textual analysis used in other disciplines of the humanities and social sciences. Many biblical scholars also interact with traditional Jewish and Christian interpreters and methods of interpretation, which may be called biblical exegesis or hermeneutics and history of interpretation or reception history.
History of the Bible[edit]
Historical research has often dominated modern biblical studies. Biblical scholars usually try to interpret a particular text within its original historical context and use whatever information is available to reconstruct that setting. Historical criticism aims to determine the provenance, authorship, and process by which ancient texts were composed. Famous theories of historical criticism include the documentary hypothesis which suggests that the Pentateuch was compiled from four different written sources, and different reconstructions of "the historical Jesus" based primarily on the differences among the canonical Gospels.
Original languages[edit]
Most of the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh, which is the basis of the Christian Old Testament, was written in Biblical Hebrew, though a few chapters were written in Biblical Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, with possible Aramaic undertones, as was the first translation of the Jewish Bible known as the Septuagint or Greek Old Testament. Therefore, Hebrew, Greek and sometimes Aramaic continue to be taught in most universities, colleges and seminaries with strong programs in biblical studies.
See also[edit]
The Bible and history
Biblical hermeneutics
Chronology of the Bible
Higher criticism
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b c d The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies by J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu (May 18, 2006) ISBN 0199254257 page xvii
2.Jump up ^ Introduction to Biblical Studies, Second Edition by Steve Moyise (Oct 27, 2004) ISBN 0567083977 pages 11–12
Further reading[edit]
The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols., eds. P. R. Ackroyd, C. F. Evans, S. L. Greenslade and G. W. H. Lampe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963, 1969, 1970.
Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale, 1974.
Greenspahn, Frederick E. "Biblical Scholars, Medieval and Modern," in J. Neusner et al. (eds.), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 245–258.
Harrison, Peter. The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2001.
Harrisville, Roy A. & Walter Sundberg. The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Knight, Douglas A. and Gene M. Tucker, eds. The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Philadelphia: Fortress/Chico: Scholars Press, 1985.
Nicholson, Ernest W. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.
Noll, Mark A. Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America. Harper & Row, 1986.
Reventlow, Henning Graf. The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World. Tr. J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
Sherwood, Yvonne and Stephen D. Moore. The Invention of the Biblical Scholar: A Critical Manifesto. Fortress, 2011.
Sperling, S. David. Students of the Covenant: A History of Jewish Biblical Scholarship in North America. Atlanta Scholars Press, 1992.
Sugirtharajah, R.S. The Bible and the Third World: Precolonial, Colonial, and Postcolonial Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2001.
External links[edit]
Bible Studies - Staying in the Word
Society of Biblical Literature
AcademicBible.com from the German Bible Society
Wabash Center's Internet Guid to Religion: Bible



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christian theology







































































































































































































































































































































































































































































P christianity.svg





[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history















Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


































  



Categories: Biblical studies
Christian terminology



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
Български
Čeština
Deutsch
Français
한국어
Italiano
Magyar
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Svenska
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 12 December 2014, at 01:32.
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_studies














Criticism of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Religious criticism" redirects here. For other definitions of religious criticism, see Varieties of criticism § Religious criticism.
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
   
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 religion is criticism of the concepts, doctrines, validity, and/or practices of religion, including associated political and social implications.[1]
Criticism of religion has a long history. In ancient Greece, it goes at least as far back as the 5th century BCE with Diagoras "the atheist" of Melos; in ancient Rome, an early known example is from the 1st century BCE with Titus Lucretius Carus' De Rerum Natura. Criticism of religion is complicated by the fact that there exist multiple definitions and concepts of religion in different cultures and languages. With the existence of diverse categories of religion such as monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, nontheism and diverse specific religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and many others; it is not always clear to whom the criticisms are aimed at or to what extent they are applicable to other religions.
Critics often consider religion to be outdated, harmful to the individual, harmful to society, an impediment to the progress of science, a source of immoral acts or customs, and a political tool for social control.



Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Criticism of religious concepts 2.1 Conflicting claims of "one true faith"
2.2 Lack of permanence
3 Explanations as non-divine in origin 3.1 Social construct
3.2 Narratives to provide comfort and meaning 3.2.1 Opium of the people
3.3 Viruses of the mind
3.4 Mental illness or delusion
3.5 Immature stage of societal development
4 Harm to individuals 4.1 Inadequate medical care
4.2 Jerusalem syndrome
4.3 Issues related to sexuality
4.4 Honor killings and stoning
4.5 Blood sacrifice
4.6 Genital modification and mutilation
4.7 Counterarguments
5 Harm to society 5.1 Holy war and religious terrorism 5.1.1 Arguments against religion being a significant cause of violence
5.2 Suppression of scientific progress
5.3 Counterarguments to religion as harmful to society
6 Morality 6.1 Children
6.2 Homosexuals
6.3 Racism
6.4 Women
6.5 Animals
7 Corrupt purposes of leaders 7.1 Corrupt or immoral leaders
7.2 Dominionism
8 See also 8.1 Criticism of specific religions
8.2 Notable critics of religion
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links

History[edit]
The 1st century BCE Roman poet, Titus Lucretius Carus, in his work De Rerum Natura, wrote: "But 'tis that same religion oftener far / Hath bred the foul impieties of men:"[2] A philosopher of the Epicurean school, Lucretius believed the world was composed solely of matter and void, and that all phenomena could be understood as resulting from purely natural causes. Lucretius, like Epicurus, felt that religion was born of fear and ignorance, and that understanding the natural world would free people of its shackles;[3] however, he did believe in gods.[4] He was not against religion in and of itself, but against traditional religion which he saw as superstition for teaching that gods interfered with the world.[5]
Niccolò Machiavelli, at the beginning of the 16th century said: "We Italians are irreligious and corrupt above others... because the church and her representatives have set us the worst example."[6] To Machiavelli, religion was merely a tool, useful for a ruler wishing to manipulate public opinion.[7]
In the 18th century Voltaire was a deist and was strongly critical of religious intolerance. Voltaire complained about Jews killed by other Jews for worshiping a golden calf and similar actions, he also condemned how Christians killed other Christians over religious differences and how Christians killed Native Americans for not being baptised. Voltaire claimed the real reason for these killings was that Christians wanted to plunder the wealth of those killed. Voltaire was also critical of Muslim intolerance.[8]
Also in the 18th century David Hume criticised teleological arguments for religion. Hume claimed that natural explanations for the order in the universe were reasonable, see Design argument. Demonstrating the unsoundness of the philosophical basis for religion was an important aim of Hume's writings.[9]
In the early 21st century the New Atheists, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, were prominent as critics of religion.[10][11]
Criticism of religious concepts[edit]
See also: Faith and rationality



 A sign that criticizes religion and draws attention to the September 11 attacks, by the Connecticut Valley Atheists in Rockville's Central Park, Vernon in December 2007. The group issued an explanatory press release, stating: "Clearly, 9/11 is the work of fanatics. However, we feel that religion even in moderation provides a foundation for fanatical groups to thrive."[12]
Some criticisms on monotheistic religions have been:
Sometimes conflict with science.[13]
Requiring behaviors that are not sensible (i.e. Old Testament prohibition against wearing garments of mixed fabrics, or punishing children of guilty parents).[14]
Revelations may conflict internally (i.e. discrepancies in the Bible among the four Gospels of the New Testament).[15][16][17]
Conflicting claims of "one true faith"[edit]
See also: Argument from inconsistent revelations
In the context of theistic belief, Stephen Roberts[18] has claimed that he dismisses all gods in the same way others dismiss all other gods.[19]
Lack of permanence[edit]
Opsopaus and Hitchens note obsolete religions — which no longer have active adherents — are evidence that religions are not everlasting.[20] Including Greek mythology, Millerism, Roman mythology, Sabbatai Sevi, and Norse mythology.[21]
Explanations as non-divine in origin[edit]
Social construct[edit]



Christopher Hitchens, journalist and author of God is not Great
See also: Development of religion
Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens have asserted that theist religions and their scriptures are not divinely inspired, but man made to fulfill social, biological, and political needs.[22][page needed][23][page needed][24][page needed] Dawkins balances the benefits of religious beliefs (mental solace, community-building, promotion of virtuous behavior) against the drawbacks.[25][page needed] Such criticisms treat religion as a social construct[26] and thus just another human ideology.
Narratives to provide comfort and meaning[edit]
Daniel Dennett has argued that, with the exception of more modern religions such as Raëlism, Mormonism, Scientology, and the Bahá'í Faith, most religions were formulated at a time when the origin of life, the workings of the body, and the nature of the stars and planets were poorly understood.[27]
These narratives were intended to give solace and a sense of relationship with larger forces. As such, they may have served several important functions in ancient societies. Examples include the views many religions traditionally had towards solar and lunar eclipses, and the appearance of comets (forms of astrology).[28][29] Given current understanding of the physical world, where human knowledge has increased dramatically; Hitchens, Dawkins, and French atheist philosopher Michel Onfray contend that continuing to hold on to these belief systems is irrational and no longer useful.[24][25][30]
Opium of the people[edit]



Karl Marx
Religious suffering is, at the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
—Karl Marx[31]
According to Karl Marx, the father of "scientific socialism", religion is a tool used by the ruling classes whereby the masses can shortly relieve their suffering via the act of experiencing religious emotions. It is in the interest of the ruling classes to instill in the masses the religious conviction that their current suffering will lead to eventual happiness. Therefore as long as the public believes in religion, they will not attempt to make any genuine effort to understand and overcome the real source of their suffering, which in Marx's opinion was their capitalist economic system. In this perspective, Marx saw religion as escapism.[31]
Marx also viewed the Christian doctrine of original sin as being deeply anti-social in character. Original sin, he argued, convinces people that the source of their misery lies in the inherent and unchangeable "sinfulness" of humanity rather than in the forms of social organization and institutions, which, Marx argued, can be changed through the application of collective social planning.[32]
Viruses of the mind[edit]



Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion
In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins coined the term memes to describe informational units that can be transmitted culturally, analogous to genes.[33] He later used this concept in the essay "Viruses of the Mind" to explain the persistence of religious ideas in human culture.[34]
John Bowker criticized the idea that "God" and "Faith" are viruses of the mind, suggesting that Dawkins' "account of religious motivation ... is ... far removed from evidence and data" and that, even if the God-meme approach were valid, "it does not give rise to one set of consequences ... Out of the many behaviours it produces, why are we required to isolate only those that might be regarded as diseased?"[35] Alister McGrath has responded by arguing that "memes have no place in serious scientific reflection",[36] that there is strong evidence that such ideas are not spread by random processes, but by deliberate intentional actions,[37] that "evolution" of ideas is more Lamarckian than Darwinian,[38] and that there is no evidence (and certainly none in the essay) that epidemiological models usefully explain the spread of religious ideas.[39] McGrath also cites a metareview of 100 studies[citation needed] and argues that "if religion is reported as having a positive effect on human well-being by 79% of recent studies in the field, then it cannot be conceivably regarded as analogous to a virus?"[40]
Mental illness or delusion[edit]



 Bodies recovered from the Jonestown massacre, in which members of a religious cult committed a mass murder/suicide
Richard Dawkins argues that religious belief often involves delusional behavior.[25] Others, such as Sam Harris, compare religion to mental illness, saying it "allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy."[41]
There are also psychological studies into the phenomenon of mysticism, and the links between disturbing aspects of certain mystic's experiences and their links to childhood abuse.[42][43][44] In another line of research, Clifford A. Pickover explores evidence suggesting that temporal lobe epilepsy may be linked to a variety of spiritual or ‘other worldly’ experiences, such as spiritual possession, originating from altered electrical activity in the brain.[45] Carl Sagan, in his last book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, presented his case for the miraculous sightings of religious figures in the past and the modern sightings of UFOs coming from the same mental disorder. According to Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, "It's possible that many great religious leaders had temporal lobe seizures and this predisposes them to having visions, having mystical experiences."[46] Michael Persinger stimulated the temporal lobes of the brain artificially with a magnetic field using a device nicknamed the "God helmet," and was able to artificially induce religious experiences along with near-death experiences and ghost sightings.[47] John Bradshaw has stated, "Some forms of temporal lobe tumours or epilepsy are associated with extreme religiosity. Recent brain imaging of devotees engaging in prayer or transcendental meditation has more precisely identified activation in such sites — God-spots, as Vilayanur Ramachandran calls them. Psilocybin from mushrooms contacts the serotonergic system, with terminals in these and other brain regions, generating a sense of cosmic unity, transcendental meaning and religious ecstasy. Certain physical rituals can generate both these feelings and corresponding serotonergic activity."[48]
Keith Ward in his book Is Religion Dangerous? addresses the claim that religious belief is a delusion. He quotes the definition in the Oxford Companion to Mind as "a fixed, idiosyncratic belief, unusual in the culture to which the person belongs," and notes that "[n]ot all false opinions are delusions." Ward then characterizes a delusion as a "clearly false opinion, especially as a symptom of a mental illness," an "irrational belief" that is "so obviously false that all reasonable people would see it as mistaken." He then says that belief in God is different, since "[m]ost great philosophers have believed in God, and they are rational people". He argues that "[a]ll that is needed to refute the claim that religious belief is a delusion is one clear example of someone who exhibits a high degree of rational ability, who functions well in the ordinary affairs of life ... and who can produce a reasonable and coherent defense of their beliefs" and claims that there are many such people, "including some of the most able philosophers and scientists in the world today."[49]
Immature stage of societal development[edit]



Philosophy and Christian Art. W. Ridgway, 1878
Philosopher Auguste Comte posited that many societal constructs pass through three stages, and that religion corresponds to the two earlier, or more primitive stages by stating: "From the study of the development of human intelligence, in all directions, and through all times, the discovery arises of a great fundamental law, to which it is necessarily subject, and which has a solid foundation of proof, both in the facts of our organization and in our historical experience. The law is this: that each of our leading conceptions – each branch of our knowledge – passes successively through three different theoretical conditions: the theological, or fictitious; the metaphysical, or abstract; and the scientific, or positive." [50]
Harm to individuals[edit]
Some have criticized the effects of adherence to dangerous practices such as self-sacrifice,[51] as well as unnatural restrictions on human behavior (such as teetotalism and sexual prohibitions) and claim that these result in mental and emotional trauma of fear and guilt.[52]
Inadequate medical care[edit]



Saint Francis Borgia performing an exorcism, by Goya
See also: Exorcism and Faith healing
A detailed study in 1998 found 140 instances of deaths of children due to religion-based medical neglect. Most of these cases involved religious parents relying on prayer to cure the child's disease, and withholding medical care.[53]
Jerusalem syndrome[edit]
Main article: Jerusalem syndrome
Jerusalem has lent its name to a unique psychological phenomenon where Jewish or Christian individuals who develop obsessive religious themed ideas or delusions (sometimes believing themselves to be Jesus Christ or another prophet) will feel compelled to travel to Jerusalem.[54][55]
During a period of 13 years (1980–1993) for which admissions to the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Centre in Jerusalem were analyzed, it was reported[56] that 1,200 tourists with severe, Jerusalem-themed mental problems, were referred to this clinic. Of these, 470 were admitted to hospital. On average, 100 such tourists have been seen annually, 40 of them requiring admission to hospital. About 2 million tourists visit Jerusalem each year. Kalian and Witztum note that as a proportion of the total numbers of tourists visiting the city, this is not significantly different from any other city.[57][58] The statements of these claims has however been disputed, with the arguments that experiencers of the Jerusalem syndrome already were mentally ill.[57][59]
Issues related to sexuality[edit]
See also: Religion and sexuality
According to Christopher Hitchens, religion has opposed certain practices such as masturbation, or certain consensual sexual acts between adults that they see as "unnatural" and asked for their legal prohibition (see sodomy laws).[52]
Honor killings and stoning[edit]
Main articles: Honor killings and stoning
Still occurring in some parts of the world, an honor killing is when a person is killed by family for bringing dishonor or shame upon the family.[60] While religions such as Islam are often blamed for such acts, Tahira Shaid Khan, a professor of women's issues at Aga Khan University, notes that there is nothing in the Qur'an that permits or sanctions honor killings.[61] Khan instead blames it on attitudes (across different classes, ethnic and religious groups) that view women as property with no rights of their own as the motivation for honor killings.[61] Khan also argues that this view results in violence against women and their being turned "into a commodity which can be exchanged, bought and sold".[62]
Stoning is a form of capital punishment whereby a group throws stones at a person until death ensues. As of September 2010, stoning is a punishment that is included in the laws in some countries including Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, and some states in Nigeria[63] as punishment for zina al-mohsena ("adultery of married persons").[64] While stoning may not be codified in the laws of Afghanistan and Somalia, both countries have seen several incidents of stoning to death.[65][66]
Until the early 2000s, stoning was a legal form of capital punishment in Iran. In 2002, the Iranian judiciary officially placed a moratorium on stoning.[67] In 2005, judiciary spokesman Jamal Karimirad stated, "in the Islamic republic, we do not see such punishments being carried out", further adding that if stoning sentences were passed by lower courts, they were overruled by higher courts and "no such verdicts have been carried out."[68] In 2008, the judiciary decided to fully scrap the punishment from the books in legislation submitted to parliament for approval.[69] In early 2013, Iranian parliament published official report about excluding stoning from penal code and it accused Western media for spreading "noisy propaganda" about the case.[70]
Blood sacrifice[edit]
See also: Blood sacrifice and Human sacrifice
Hitchens claims that many religions endorse blood sacrifice, wherein innocent victims are killed or harmed to appease deities,[71] specifically citing Judaism for its obsession with blood and sacrifice, particularly the goal of identifying and sacrificing of a pure red heifer (described in Numbers 19), the pursuit of which Hitchens characterizes as "absurd", singling out the goal of raising a human child in a "bubble" so as to "be privileged to cut that heifer's throat".[72]
Genital modification and mutilation[edit]
Hitchens claims that many religions endorse male circumcision and female genital cutting, which he views as genital mutilation, and as immoral, unhealthy, and unnecessary.[73]
Counterarguments[edit]
Responding in the book The Irrational Atheist to criticisms that religion is harmful, Theodore Beale argues that religious individuals tend to be happier and healthier, more likely to have children, and more sexually satisfied than non-religious individuals.[74] There is substantial research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed.[75][76] Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[77] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[78] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[79][vague][80] Surveys suggest a strong link between faith and altruism.[81] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health,[82] and a meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 also found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[83] Andrew E. Clark and Orsolya Lelkes surveyed 90,000 people in 26 European countries and found that "[one's own] religious behaviour is positively correlated with individual life satisfaction.", greater overall "religiosity" in a region also correlates positively with "individual life satisfaction". The reverse was found to be true: a large "atheist" (non-religious) population "has negative spillover effects" for both the religious and non-religious members of the population.[84] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[85]
However, as of 2001, most of those studies were conducted within the United States.[86] There is no significant correlation between religiosity and individual happiness in Denmark and the Netherlands, countries that have lower rates of religion than the United States.[87] A cross-national investigation on subjective well-being has noted that, globally, religious people are usually happier than nonreligious people, though nonreligious people can also reach high levels of happiness.[88] The 2013 World Happiness Report mentions that once crude factors are taken into account, there are no differences in life satisfaction between religious and less religious countries, even though a meta analysis concludes that greater religiosity is mildly associated with fewer depressive symptoms and 75% of studies find at least some positive effect of religion on well-being.[89]
Harm to society[edit]
Some aspects of religion are criticized on the basis that they damage society as a whole. Steven Weinberg, for example, states it takes religion to make good people do evil.[90] Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins cite religiously inspired or justified violence, resistance to social change, attacks on science, repression of women, and homophobia.[91]
Hartung has claimed that major religious moral codes can lead to "us vs. them" group solidarity and mentality which can dehumanise or demonise individuals outside their group as "not fully human", or less worthy. Results can vary from mild discrimination to outright genocide.[92] A poll by The Guardian, a UK newspaper noted that 82% of the British people believe that religion is socially divisive and that this effect is harmful despite the observation that non-believers outnumber believers 2 to 1.[93]
Holy war and religious terrorism[edit]



 Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople by Gustave Doré (1832–1883)
Main articles: Religious war, Religious terrorism and Religious violence
Hitchens and Dawkins say that religions do tremendous harm to society in three ways:[24][page needed][25][page needed]
Religions sometimes encourage war (Crusades, Jihad), violence, and terrorism to promote their religious goals
Religious leaders contribute to secular wars and terrorism by endorsing or supporting the violence
Religious fervor is exploited by secular leaders to support war and terrorism
Although the causes of terrorism are complex, it may be that terrorists are partially reassured by their religious views that God is on their side and will reward them in heaven for punishing unbelievers.[94][95]
These conflicts are among the most difficult to resolve, particularly where both sides believe that God is on their side and has endorsed the moral righteousness of their claims.[94] One of the most infamous quotes associated with religious fanaticism was made in 1209 during the siege of Béziers, a Crusader asked the Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric how to tell Catholics from Cathars when the city was taken, to which Amalric replied: "Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens," or "Kill them all; God will recognize his own."[96]
Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku considers religious terrorism as one of the main threats in humanity's evolution from a Type 0 to Type 1 civilization.[97]
Arguments against religion being a significant cause of violence[edit]



Michel Onfray, French philosopher who wrote the Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
Some argue that religious violence is mostly caused by misinterpretations of the relevant religions' ethical rules and a combination of non-religious factors.[98][99][100][101] This includes the claim that events like terrorist bombings are more politically motivated than religious.[100][102][103] Mark Juergensmeyer argues that religion "does not ordinarily lead to violence.That happens only with the coalescence of a peculiar set of circumstances—political, social, and ideological—when religion becomes fused with violent expressions of social aspirations, personal pride, and movements for political change."[104]:10 It is also argued that the same violence happens in non-religious countries or regimes such as in communist Soviet Union.[105][106][self-published source?][101][107]
Christopher Hitchens notes that "it is interesting to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists."[108] Richard Dawkins, in response to Pope Benedict's accusations that atheism was responsible for "some 20th-century atrocities", has replied: "how dare Ratzinger suggest that atheism has any connection whatsoever with their horrific deeds? Any more than Hitler and Stalin's non-belief in leprechauns or unicorns.... There is no logical pathway from atheism to wickedness."[109]
Suppression of scientific progress[edit]



Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition
John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, authors of the conflict thesis, have argued that when a religion offers a complete set of answers to the problems of purpose, morality, origins, or science, it often discourages exploration of those areas by suppressing curiosity, denies its followers a broader perspective, and can prevent social, moral and scientific progress. Examples cited in their writings include the trial of Galileo and Giordano Bruno's execution.
During the 19th century the conflict thesis developed. According to this model, any interaction between religion and science must inevitably lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas.[110] The historical conflict thesis was a popular historiographical approach in the history of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but its original form is almost entirely discarded by scholars today.[111][112][113] Despite that, conflict theory remains a popular view among the general public,[114] and has been publicized by the success of books such as The God Delusion.
Historians of science including John Hedley Brooke and Ronald Numbers consider the "religion vs. science" concept an oversimplification, and prefer to take a more nuanced view of the subject.[114][115] These historians cite, for example, the Galileo affair[116] and the Scopes trial,[117] and assert that these were not purely instances of conflict between science and religion; personal and political factors also weighed heavily in the development of each. In addition, some historians contend[citation needed] that religious organizations figure prominently in the broader histories of many sciences, with many of the scientific minds until the professionalization of scientific enterprise (in the 19th century) being clergy and other religious thinkers.[118][119][120] Some historians contend that many scientific developments, such as Kepler's laws[121] and the 19th century reformulation of physics in terms of energy,[122] were explicitly driven by religious ideas.
Recent examples of tensions have been the creation-evolution controversy, controversies over the use of birth control, opposition to research into embryonic stem cells, or theological objections to vaccination, anesthesia, and blood transfusion.[123][124][125][126][127]
Counterarguments against assumed conflict between the sciences and religions have been offered. For example, C. S. Lewis, a Christian, suggested that all religions, by definition, involve faith, or a belief in concepts that cannot be proven or disproven by the sciences. However, some religious beliefs have not been in line with views of the scientific community, for instance Young Earth creationism.[128] Though some who criticize religions subscribe to the conflict thesis, others do not. For example, Stephen Jay Gould agrees with C. S. Lewis and suggested that religion and science were non-overlapping magisteria.[129] Scientist Richard Dawkins has said that religious practitioners often do not believe in the view of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA).[130]
However, research on perceptions of science among the American public concludes that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science or with the seeking out of scientific knowledge, although there may be epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.[131][132] Even strict creationists tend to have very favorable views on science.[133] Also, cross-national studies, polled from 1981-2001, on views of science and religion have noted that countries with higher religiosity have stronger trust in science, whereas countries that are seen as more secular are more skeptical about the impact of science and technology.[134] Though the United States is a highly religious country compared to other advanced industrial countries, according to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes towards science are more favorable in the United States than Europe, Russia, and Japan.[133] A study on a national sample of US college students examined whether they viewed the science / religion relationship as reflecting primarily conflict, collaboration, or independence. The study concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move away from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than vice versa.[135]
Counterarguments to religion as harmful to society[edit]
One study notes that significant levels of social dysfunction are found in highly religious countries such as the US and that countries which have lower religiosity also tend to have lower levels of dysfunction though it is noted in a later edition that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.[136][137][138]
Other studies show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior, artruism and crime.[139][140][141][142][143][144] Indeed, a meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, "religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals' criminal behavior".[139] [140][141][145][146][147][148][149] One study revealed that, at least in the United States forty percent of worship service attenders volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[148] Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).[148] Other research has shown similar correlations between religiosity and giving.[150][151][152][153][153][154][155] In similar surveys, those who attended church were also more likely to report that they were registered to vote, that they volunteered, that they personally helped someone who was homeless, and to describe themselves as "active in the community."[156]
Morality[edit]
See also: Human sacrifice, Morality and religion and Religious intolerance
Dawkins contends that theistic religions devalue human compassion and morality. In his view, the Bible contains many injunctions against following one's conscience over scripture, and positive actions are supposed to originate not from compassion, but from the fear of punishment.[25] Albert Einstein stated that no religious basis is needed in order to display ethical behavior.[157]
Survey research suggests that believers do tend to hold different views than non-believers on a variety of social, ethical and moral questions. According to a 2003 survey conducted in the United States by The Barna Group, those who described themselves as believers were less likely than those describing themselves as atheists or agnostics to consider the following behaviors morally acceptable: cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage, enjoying sexual fantasies, having an abortion, sexual relationships outside of marriage, gambling, looking at pictures of nudity or explicit sexual behavior, getting drunk, and "having a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex."[158]
Children[edit]
See also: Indoctrination, Mind control, Religion and children and Child marriage
In the 19th century, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer argued that teaching some ideas to children at a young age could foster resistance to doubting those ideas later on.[159] Richard Dawkins maintains that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated because they do not have yet sufficient maturity and knowledge to make their own conclusions.[160] Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins use the term child abuse to describe what they see as the harm inflicted on children by some religious upbringings.[161][162]
Dawkins states that labeling children as "Muslim child" or "Catholic child" is unreasonable since children are not mature enough to decide major questions in life for themselves. In his view, no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child", for instance.[161] He suggests such labeling is not seen as controversial because of the "weirdly privileged status of religion".
Islam[163] has permitted the child marriage of older men to girls as young as 9 years of age. Baptist pastor Jerry Vines has cited the age of one of Muhammad's wives, Aisha, to denounce him for having had sex with a nine-year-old, referring to Muhammad as a pedophile.[164]
The Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children describes cases of a 10-year-old girl being married and raped in Yemen (Nujood Ali),[165] a 13-year-old Yemeni girl dying of internal bleeding three days after marriage,[166][167] and a 12-year-old girl dying in childbirth after marriage.[163][168] Yemen currently does not have a minimum age for marriage.[169]
Latter Day Saint church founder Joseph Smith married girls as young as 13 and 14,[170] and other Latter Day Saints married girls as young as 10.[171] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints eliminated underaged marriages in the 19th century, but several branches of Mormonism continue the practice.[172]
Homosexuals[edit]


A Westboro Baptist Church picket in Northlake, Illinois, US on November 29, 2005
Main article: Homosexuality and religion
Elton John has said that organized religion promotes the hatred of homosexuals.[173] Unlike many other religions, Hinduism does not view homosexuality as an issue.[174]
In the United States, conservative Christian groups such as the Christian Legal Society and the Alliance Defense Fund have filed numerous lawsuits against public universities, aimed at overturning policies that protect homosexuals from discrimination and hate speech. These groups argue that such policies infringe their right to freely exercise religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.[175]
Homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, and several of these countries impose the death penalty for homosexual behavior. In July 2005, two Iranian men, aged sixteen and eighteen, were publicly hanged for homosexuality, causing an international outcry.[176]
Racism[edit]



 Burning cross often used by Ku Klux Klan to intimidate minorities
Religion has been used by some as justification for advocating racism. The Christian Identity movement has been associated with racism.[177] There are arguments, however, that these positions may be as much reflections of contemporary social views as of what has been called scientific racism.[178]
The LDS Church excluded blacks from the priesthood in the church, from 1860 to 1978.[179] Most Fundamentalist Mormon sects within the Latter Day Saint movement, rejected the LDS Church’s 1978 decision to allow African Americans to hold the priesthood, and continue to deny activity in the church due to race.[180] Due to these beliefs, in its Spring 2005 "Intelligence Report", the Southern Poverty Law Center named the FLDS Church to its "hate group" listing[181] because of the church's teachings on race, which include a fierce condemnation of interracial relationships.
On the other hand, many Christians have made efforts toward establishing racial equality, contributing to the Civil Rights Movement.[182] The African American Review sees as important the role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement.[183] 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.[184]
Women[edit]
See also: Gender and religion, Christianity and domestic violence, Islam and domestic violence and Misogyny
Islamic laws have been criticized by human rights organizations for exposing women to mistreatment and violence, preventing women from reporting rape, and contributing to the discrimination of women.[185] Hitchens and the United Nations also say that Islam is used to justify unnecessary and harmful female genital mutilation (FGM), when the purposes range from deprivation of sexual satisfaction to discourage adultery, insuring virginity to their husbands, or generating appearance of virginity.[73][186] Maryam Namazie argues that women are victimized under Sharia law, both in criminal matters (such as punishment for improper veiling) and in civil matters, and also that women have judicial hurdles that are lenient or advantageous for men.[187]
According to Phyllis Chesler, Islam is connected to violence against women, especially in the form of honor killings. She rejects the argument that honor killings are not related to Islam, and claims that while fundamentalists of all religions place restrictions on women, in Islam not only are these restrictions harsher, but Islam also reacts more violently when these rules are broken.[188]
Christianity has been criticized for painting women as sinful, untrustful, deceiving, and desiring to seduce and incite men into sexual sin.[189] Katharine M. Rogers argues that Christianity is misogynistic, and that the "dread of female seduction" can be found in St. Paul's epistles.[190] K. K. Ruthven argues that the "legacy of Christian misogyny was consolidated by the so-called 'Fathers' of the Church, like Tertullian, who thought a woman was not only 'the gateway of the devil' but also 'a temple built over a sewer'."[191] Jack Holland argues the concept of fall of man is misogynistic as "a myth that blames woman for the ills and sufferings of mankind".[192]
According to Polly Toynbee, religion interferes with physical autonomy, and fosters negative attitudes towards women's bodies. Toynbee writes that "Women's bodies are always the issue - too unclean to be bishops, and dangerous enough to be covered up by Islam and mikvahed by Judaism".[193]
One criticism of religion is that it contributes to unequal relations in marriage, creating norms which subordinate the wife to the husband. The word בעל (ba`al), Hebrew for husband, used throughout the Bible, is synonymous with owner and master.[194] Hitchens argued that the commandment of Thou shalt not covet is sexist because it "throws in 'wife' along with the other property, animal, human, and material, of the neighbor" and considers the wife as "chattel".[195] Hitchens pointed out that divorce in Ireland was only legalized in 1996, and argued that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland preferred for women to be trapped with violent husbands, rather than to change its dogma.[196]
Feminist Julie Bindel argues that religions encourage the domination of men over women, and that Islam promotes the submission of women to their husbands, and encourages practices such as child marriage. She wrote that religion "promotes inequality between men and women", that Islam's message for a woman includes that "she will be subservient to her husband and devote her life to pleasing him", and that "Islam's obsession with virginity and childbirth has led to gender segregation and early marriage.[197] Another feminist criticism of religion is the portrayal of God as an omnipotent, perfect power, where this power is one of domination, which is persistently associated with the characteristics of ideal masculinity.[198] Sheila Jeffreys argues that "Religion gives authority to traditional, patriarchal beliefs about the essentially subordinate nature of women and their naturally separate roles, such as the need for women to be confined to the private world of the home and family, that women should be obedient to their husbands, that women's sexuality should be modest and under the control of their menfolk, and that women should not use contraception or abortion to limit their childbearing. The practice of such ancient beliefs interferes profoundly with women's abilities to exercise their human rights".[199]
Christian religious figures have been involved in the Middle Ages and early modern period Witch trials, which were generally used to punish assertive or independent women, such as midwives, since witchcraft was often not in evidence,[200] or activists.[201]
Animals[edit]



Shechita
Kosher slaughter has historically attracted criticism from non-Jews as allegedly being inhumane and unsanitary,[202] in part as an antisemitic canard that eating ritually slaughtered meat caused degeneration,[203] and in part out of economic motivation to remove Jews from the meat industry.[202] Sometimes, however, these criticisms were directed at Judaism as a religion. In 1893, animal advocates campaigning against kosher slaughter in Aberdeen attempted to link cruelty with Jewish religious practice.[204] In the 1920s, Polish critics of kosher slaughter claimed that the practice actually had no basis in Scripture.[202] In contrast, Jewish authorities argue that the slaughter methods are based directly upon Genesis IX:3, and that "these laws are binding on Jews today."[205]
Supporters of kosher slaughter counter that Judaism requires the practice precisely because it is considered humane.[205] Research conducted by Temple Grandin and Joe M. Regenstein in 1994 concluded that, practiced correctly with proper restraint systems, kosher slaughter results in little pain and suffering, and notes that behavioral reactions to the incision made during kosher slaughter are less than those to noises such as clanging or hissing, inversion or pressure during restraint.[206] Those who practice and subscribe religiously and philosophically to Jewish vegetarianism disagree, stating that such slaughter is not required, while a number, including medieval scholars of Judaism such as Joseph Albo and Isaac Arama, regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal, not just out of a concern for animal welfare but also the slaughterer.[207]
Other forms of ritual slaughter, such as Islamic ritual slaughter, have also come under controversy. Logan Scherer, writing for PETA, said that animals sacrificed according to Islamic law can not be stunned before they are killed.[208] Muslims are only allowed to eat meat that has been killed according to Sharia law, and they say that Islamic law on ritual slaughter is designed to reduce the pain and distress that the animal suffers.[209]
According to the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), Halal and Kosher practices should be banned because when animals are not stunned before death, they suffer needles pain for up to 2 minutes, however, Muslims and Jews argue that loss of blood from slash to the throat renders the animals unconscious pretty quickly.[210]
Corrupt purposes of leaders[edit]
Corrupt or immoral leaders[edit]



 Caricature of Mormon leader Brigham Young's wives at his death
Hitchens has noted some leaders who have abused their positions for financial gains such as the Indian mystic Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who owned 90 Rolls Royce cars, cult leader David Koresh, Joseph Smith who had about 27 wives, and Brigham Young who had about 57 wives.[211]
Dominionism[edit]
Main article: Dominionism
See also: Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism
The term dominionism is often used to describe a political movement among fundamentalist Christians. Critics view dominionism as an attempt to improperly impose Christianity as the national faith of the United States. It emerged in the late 1980s inspired by the book, film and lecture series, "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" by Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop.[212] Schaeffer's views influenced conservatives like Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, John W. Whitehead, and although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists believe they have a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society", either by putting fundamentalist Christians in office, or by introducing biblical law into the secular sphere.[123][213][214] Social scientists have used the word "dominionism" to refer to adherence to Dominion Theology[215][216][217] as well as to the influence in the broader Christian Right of ideas inspired by Dominion Theology.[215]
In the early 1990s, sociologist Sara Diamond[218][219] and journalist Frederick Clarkson[220][221] defined dominionism as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right.[222] Beginning in 2004 with essayist Katherine Yurica,[223][224][225] a group of authors including journalist Chris Hedges[226][227][228] Marion Maddox,[229] James Rudin,[230] Sam Harris,[231] and the group TheocracyWatch[232] began applying the term to a broader spectrum of people than have sociologists such as Diamond.
Full adherents to reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[233][page needed][234][235] The terms "dominionist" and "dominionism" are rarely used for self-description, and their usage has been attacked from several quarters. Chip Berlet wrote that "some critics of the Christian Right have stretched the term dominionism past its breaking point."[236] Sara Diamond wrote that "[l]iberals' writing about the Christian Right's take-over plans has generally taken the form of conspiracy theory."[237] Journalist Anthony Williams charged that its purpose is "to smear the Republican Party as the party of domestic Theocracy, facts be damned."[238] Stanley Kurtz labeled it "conspiratorial nonsense," "political paranoia," and "guilt by association,"[239] and decried Hedges' "vague characterizations" that allow him to "paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless 'Dominionist' Christian mass."[240] Kurtz also complained about a perceived link between average Christian evangelicals and extremism such as Christian Reconstructionism.[239]
See also[edit]
Anthropology of religion
Antireligion
Antitheism
Atheism
Biblical inerrancy
Christianity and violence
Civil religion
Cognitive dissonance
Conversational intolerance
Deism
Development of religion
Folk religion
God is dead
Metaethics
Morality without religion
Philosophy of religion
Problem of evil
Theodicy
Psychology of religion
Rationalism
Religion
Religiosity and intelligence
Religious belief
Religious paranoia
Religious satire
Russell's teapot
Social criticism
Sociology of religion
Supernatural
Superstition
Theism
Theology
True-believer syndrome
Criticism of specific religions[edit]
Controversies about Opus Dei
Criticism of Buddhism
Criticism of Christianity
Criticism of Hinduism
Criticism of Islam
Criticism of Jainism
Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses
Criticism of Judaism
Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Criticism of Sikhism
Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church
Scientology controversy
Notable critics of religion[edit]
Douglas Adams
George Carlin
Daniel Dennett
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
Christopher Hitchens
Baron d'Holbach
David Hume
Friedrich Nietzsche
Thomas Paine
Bertrand Russell
Dayanand Saraswati
Mark Twain
Voltaire
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Beckford, James A. (2003). Social Theory and Religion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-521-77431-4.
2.Jump up ^ Titus Lucretius Carus. "De Rerum Natura". Retrieved 2007-08-05.
3.Jump up ^ "Lucretius (c.99 – c.55 BCE)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2007-08-05.
4.Jump up ^ "Lucretius – Stanford Encyclopedia". Retrieved 19 April 2012.
5.Jump up ^ Lucretius (1992). On the Nature of Things Translated by W.H.D. Rouse. Harvard University Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-674-99200-8. "This (superstition) or "false religion", not "religion," is the meaning of "religio". The Epicureans were opposed, not to religion (cf. 6.68–79), but to traditional religion which taught that the gods govern the world. That Lucretius regarded "religio" as synonymous with "superstitio" is implied by "super....instans" in [line] 65."
6.Jump up ^ Middlemore, S. G. C.; Burckhardt, Jacob; Murray, Peter; Burke, Peter (1990). The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. Penguin Classics. ISBN 0-14-044534-X.
7.Jump up ^ Machiavelli, Nicolo (1532). "The Prince". Retrieved 2007-08-10.
8.Jump up ^ "Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
9.Jump up ^ "Hume on Religion". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
10.Jump up ^ Bailey, David. "What are the merits of recent claims by atheistic scholars that modern science proves religion to be false and vain?".
11.Jump up ^ "The New Atheists". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
12.Jump up ^ "The Vernon Atheist Display," Press Release, CT Valley Atheists, December 17, 2007 . Retrieved October 1, 2008.
13.Jump up ^ White, Andrew D. (1993). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom : Two volumes. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0879758260.
14.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is Not Great. Random House, Inc. p. 99. ISBN 0-7710-4142-X.
15.Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman; Misquoting Jesus, 166
16.Jump up ^ Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration, pp. 199–200
17.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1999-05-18). The Birth of the Messiah: a commentary on the infancy narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. Yale University Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-300-14008-8.
18.Jump up ^ "History of The Quote". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
19.Jump up ^ Narciso, Dianna (2003). Like Rolling Uphill: realizing the honesty of atheism. Coral Springs, FL: Llumina Press. p. 6. ISBN 1-932560-74-2.
20.Jump up ^ Opsopaus, John. The Art of Haruspicy.
21.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 169–173.
22.Jump up ^ Dennett, Daniel (2006). Breaking the Spell. Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9789-3.
23.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith. W. W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-32765-5.
24.^ Jump up to: a b c Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve. ISBN 978-0-446-57980-3.
25.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
26.Jump up ^ Lim, Chaeyoon; Puntam, Robert (2010). "Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction". American Sociological Review 75 (6): 914–933. doi:10.1177/0003122410386686.
27.Jump up ^ Dennett, Daniel Clement (2006). Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Viking Adult. ISBN 0-670-03472-X.
28.Jump up ^ "When solar fears eclipse reason". BBC News. 2006-03-28. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
29.Jump up ^ "Comets in Ancient Cultures". NASA.
30.Jump up ^ Onfray, Michel (2007). Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Arcade Publishing. ISBN 1-55970-820-4.
31.^ Jump up to: a b Marx, Karl (February 1844). "Introduction". A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.
32.Jump up ^ Marx, Karl (1867). Das Kapital. Volume 1, Part VIII.
33.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The Selfish Gene, 30th Anniversary edition.
34.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (1991). "Viruses of the Mind".
35.Jump up ^ In his 1992–93 Gresham College lectures, written in collaboration with the psychiatrist Quinton Deeley and published as Is God a Virus?, SPCK, 1995, 274 pp. The quotes here come from p.73.
36.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.125, quoting Simon Conway Morris in support
37.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.126
38.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.127
39.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life pp.137–138
40.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.136, citing Koenig and Cohen, The Link between Religion and Health, OUP, 2002.
41.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith. W.W. Norton. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-393-03515-5.
42.Jump up ^ "The Psychology of Mysticism". The Primal page.
43.Jump up ^ "Mysticism and Psychopathology". The Primal page.
44.Jump up ^ Atlas, Jerrold (2003). "Medieval Mystics' Lives As Self-Medication for Childhood Abuse".
45.Jump up ^ Pickover, Clifford (September–October 1999). The Vision of the Chariot: Transcendent Experience and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Science & Spirit.
46.Jump up ^ "God on the Brain". BBC Science & Nature.
47.Jump up ^ Shermer, Michael (1999-11-01). "Why People Believe in God: An Empirical Study on a Deep Question". American Humanist Association. p. 2. Retrieved 2006-04-05.
48.Jump up ^ Bradshaw, John (18 June 2006). "A God of the Gaps?". Ockham’s Razor (ABC).
49.Jump up ^ Ward, Keith (2006). Is Religion Dangerous?. London:Lion Hudson Plc: Lion. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-7459-5262-8.
50.Jump up ^ Comte, Auguste. "Course of Positive Philosophy (1830)".
51.Jump up ^ Branden, N. (1963), "Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice," Ayn Rand – The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism.
52.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 205–217.
53.Jump up ^ Asser, S. M.; Swan, R (1998-Apr; vol 101 (issue 4 Pt 1)). "Child fatalities from religion-motivated medical neglect". Pediatrics 101 (4 Pt 1): pp 625–9. doi:10.1542/peds.101.4.625. PMID 9521945. Check date values in: |date= (help)
54.Jump up ^ "Jerusalem Syndrome: Jewish Virtual Library".
55.Jump up ^ "Jerusalem Syndrome".
56.Jump up ^ Bar-el, Y; Durst, R; Katz, G; Zislin, J; Strauss, Z; Knobler, HY. (2000). "Jerusalem syndrome". British Journal of Psychiatry 176 (1): 86–90. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.1.86.
57.^ Jump up to: a b Kalian, M; Witztum, E. (2000). "Comments on Jerusalem syndrome". British Journal of Psychiatry 176 (5): 492. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.5.492-a.
58.Jump up ^ Tannock C, Turner T. (1995) Psychiatric tourism is overloading London beds. BMJ 1995;311:806 Full Text
59.Jump up ^ Kalian, M; Witztum, E. (1999). "The Jerusalem syndrome"—fantasy and reality a survey of accounts from the 19th and 20th centuries". Isr. J. Psychiatry Relat Sci. 36 (4): 260–71. PMID 10687302.
60.Jump up ^ "Ethics - Honour crimes". BBC. 1970-01-01. Retrieved 2013-08-16.
61.^ Jump up to: a b Hilary Mantell Thousands of Women Killed for Family "Honor". National Geographic News. February 12, 2002
62.Jump up ^ "International Domestic Violence Issues". Sanctuary For Families. Retrieved 2011-12-05.
63.Jump up ^ Handley, Paul (11 Sep 2010). "Islamic countries under pressure over stoning". AFP. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
64.Jump up ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about Stoning". violence is not our culture. Retrieved 14 May 2013.
65.Jump up ^ Sommerville, Quentin (26 Jan 2011). "Afghan police pledge justice for Taliban stoning". BBC. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
66.Jump up ^ Nebehay, Stephanie (10 Jul 2009). "Pillay accuses Somali rebels of possible war crimes". Times of India. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
67.Jump up ^ "Iran 'adulterer' stoned to death". BBC News. 10 July 2007. Archived from the original on 3 December 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
68.Jump up ^ "Iran denies execution by stoning". BBC News. 11 January 2005. Retrieved 2010-09-23.
69.Jump up ^ "Iran to scrap death by stoning". AFP. August 6, 2008. Retrieved September 23, 2010.
70.Jump up ^ «سنگسار» در شرع حذف شدنی نیست
71.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 205–217.
72.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. p. 206.
73.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 223–226.
74.Jump up ^ Beale, Theodore as Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist, Benbella Books, 2008. ISBN 978-1-933771-36-6
75.Jump up ^ Rudin, Mike (30 April 2006). "The science of happiness". BBC. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
76.Jump up ^ Paul, Pamela (9 January 2005). "The New Science of Happiness". Time.
77.Jump up ^ Ward, Keith. Is Religion Dangerous?, p.156, citing David Myers The Science of Subjective Well-Being, Guilford Press, 2007.
78.Jump up ^ Smith, Timothy; McCullough, Michael; Poll, Justin (2003). "Religiousness and Depression: Evidence for a Main Effect and Moderating Influence of Stressful Life Events". Psychological Bulletin 129 (4): 614–36. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.614. PMID 12848223.
79.Jump up ^ Bryan Johnson & colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (2002)
80.Jump up ^ Is Religion Dangerous? cites similar results from the Handbook of Religion and Mental Health, Harold Koenig (ed.) ISBN 978-0-12-417645-4
81.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organizations
82.Jump up ^ Is Religion Dangerous?, Chapter 9.
83.Jump up ^ Hackney, Charles H.; Sanders, Glenn S. (2003). "Religiosity and Mental Health: A Meta–Analysis of Recent Studies". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42 (1): 43–55. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.t01-1-00160.
84.Jump up ^ Clark, A. E., & Lelkes, O. (January 2009). "Let us pray: religious interactions in life satisfaction", working paper no. 2009-01. Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques. Abstract retrieved July 2, 2009.
85.Jump up ^ Moreira-Almeida, Alexander; Neto, Francisco Lotufo; Koenig, Harold G. (September 2006). "Religiousness and mental health: a review". Rev. Bras. Psiquiatr. 28 (3): 242–250. doi:10.1590/S1516-44462006005000006. PMID 16924349.
86.Jump up ^ Koenig HG, McCullough M, Larson DB (2001). Handbook of Religion and Health. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 18.
87.Jump up ^ Snoep, Liesbeth (6 February 2007). "Religiousness and happiness in three nations: a research note". Journal of Happiness Studies.
88.Jump up ^ Ronald Inglehart (2010). "Faith and Freedom: Traditional and Modern Ways to Happiness". In Ed Diener, John F. Helliwell, Daniel Kahneman. International Differences in Well-Being. Oxford University Press. pp. 378–385. ISBN 978-0-19-973273-9.
89.Jump up ^ "World Happiness Report 2013" (PDF). Columbia University. pp. 71–72.
90.Jump up ^ Weinberg, Steven (April 1999). "A Designer Universe?". PhysLink.com. Washington, D.C. Retrieved 2010-02-22. "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."
91.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand. "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?". Retrieved 2009-10-23.
92.Jump up ^ Hartung, John (1995). "Love Thy Neighbour, The Evolution of In-Group Morality". Skeptic 3 (5).
93.Jump up ^ Julian Glover. "Religion does more harm than good - poll". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
94.^ Jump up to: a b Juergensmeyer, Mark (2001-09-21). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. Updated edition. University of California Press.
95.Jump up ^ "Christian Jihad: The Crusades and Killing in the Name of Christ". Cbn.com. 1998-02-23. Retrieved 2011-10-08.
96.Jump up ^ "Kill Them All; For The Lord Knoweth Them That Are His Steve Locks (Reply) (9-00)". Retrieved 2007-08-18.
97.Jump up ^ "Cover Story – businesstoday – February 2007". Apexstuff.com. 1947-01-24. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
98.Jump up ^ Kabbani, Hisham; Seraj Hendricks; Ahmad Hendricks. "Jihad — A Misunderstood Concept from Islam".
99.Jump up ^ Esposito, John (2005), Islam: The Straight Path, p.93.
100.^ Jump up to: a b Pape, Robert (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. New York, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-4000-6317-5.
101.^ Jump up to: a b Orr, H. Allen (1999). "Gould on God". bostonreview.net. Retrieved 24 January 2009.
102.Jump up ^ "Terrorism: The Current Threat", The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 10 February 2000.
103.Jump up ^ Nardin, Terry (May 2001). "Review of Terror in the Mind of God". The Journal of Politics (Southern Political Science Association) 64 (2): 683–684.
104.Jump up ^ Mark Juergensmeyer (2004). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24011-1.
105.Jump up ^ Feinberg, John S.; Feinberg, Paul D. (2010-11-04). Ethics for a Brave New World. Crossway Books. ISBN 978-1-58134-712-8. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'"
106.Jump up ^ Koukl, Gregory. "The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?". Stand To Reason. Retrieved 2007-10-18.
107.Jump up ^ D'Souza, Dinesh. "Answering Atheist’s Arguments". Catholic Education Resource Center. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist."
108.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great. p. 230.
109.Jump up ^ "Richard Dawkins Responds to Papal Attack on Atheists", The Atlantic Wire, September 2010.
110.Jump up ^ Wilson, David B. (2002). "The Historiography of Science and Religion". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
111.Jump up ^ Russell, Colin A. (2002). "The Conflict Thesis". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "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"
112.Jump up ^ Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. p. 195. "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"
113.Jump up ^ Brooke, J.H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. "In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited."
114.^ Jump up to: a b Ferngren, Gary (2002). "Introduction". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind"
115.Jump up ^ Russell, Colin A. (2002). "The Conflict Thesis". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is perceived by some historians as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science."
116.Jump up ^ Blackwell, Richard J. (2002). "Galileo Galilei". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
117.Jump up ^ Larson, Edward J. (1997). Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Battle over Science and Religion. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
118.Jump up ^ Rupke, Nicolaas A. (2002). "Geology and Paleontology". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
119.Jump up ^ Hess, Peter M. (2002). "Natural History". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
120.Jump up ^ Moore, James (2002). "Charles Darwin". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
121.Jump up ^ Barker, Peter; Goldstein, Bernard R. (2001). "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy". Osiris. Science in Theistic Contexts 16. University of Chicago Press. pp. 88–113.
122.Jump up ^ Smith, Crosbie (1998). The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. London: The Athlone Press.
123.^ Jump up to: a b Berlet, Chip. "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
124.Jump up ^ "Humanae Vitae: Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Regulation of Birth, July 25, 1968". The Vatican. Retrieved 2006-10-01.
125.Jump up ^ "MPs turn attack back on Cardinal Pell". Sydney Morning Herald. 2007-06-06.
126.Jump up ^ "Pope warns Bush on stem cells". BBC News. 2001-07-23.
127.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.
128.Jump up ^ "IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution" (PDF). the Interacademy Panel on international issues. 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-07-01. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
129.Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-45040-X.
130.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2007). The God Delusion (Paperback ed.). p. 77.
131.Jump up ^ Evans, John (2011). "Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50 (4): 707–727. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01603.x.
132.Jump up ^ Baker, Joseph O.; Public Understanding of Science (April 2012). "Public Perceptions of Incompatibility Between "Science and Religion"" 21 (3). pp. 340–353.
133.^ Jump up to: a b Keeter, Scott; Smith, Gregory; Masci, David (2011). "Religious Belief and Attitudes about Science in the United States". The Culture of science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. New York: Routledge. p. 336,345–346. ISBN 978-0415873697. "The United States is perhaps the most religious out of the advanced industrial democracies." ; "In fact, large majorities of the traditionally religious American nevertheless hold very positive views of science and scientists. Even people who accept a strict creationist view, regarding the origins of life are mostly favorable towards science." ; "According to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes about science are more favorable in the United States than in Europe, Russia, and Japan, despite great differences across these cultures in level of religiosity (National Science Foundation, 2008)."
134.Jump up ^ Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart (2011). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-1-107-64837-1.
135.Jump up ^ Christopher P. Scheitle (2011). "U.S. College students' perception of religion and science: Conflict, collaboration, or independence? A research note". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Blackwell) 50 (1): 175–186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. ISSN 1468-5906.
136.Jump up ^ "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies)". Retrieved 2007-10-30. "There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms."
137.Jump up ^ Moreno-Riaño, Gerson; Smith, Mark Caleb; Mach, Thomas (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health" (PDF). Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8.
138.Jump up ^ Jensen, Gary F. (2006) Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look, Journal of Religion and Society, Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University, Vol. 8, ISSN 1522-5658
139.^ Jump up to: a b Kerley, Kent R.; Matthews, Todd L.; Blanchard, Troy C. (2005). "Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4): 443–457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x.
140.^ Jump up to: a b Saroglou, Vassilis; Pichon, Isabelle; Trompette, Laurence; Verschueren, Marijke; Dernelle, Rebecca (2005). "Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3): 323–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x.
141.^ Jump up to: a b Regnerus, Mark D.; Burdette, Amy (2006). "Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics". The Sociological Quarterly 47 (1): 175–194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00042.x.
142.Jump up ^ for example, a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
143.Jump up ^ As is stated in: Doris C. Chu (2007). Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use" Criminal Justice and Behavior 2007; 34; 661 originally published online Mar 7, 2007; doi:10.1177/0093854806293485
144.Jump up ^ For example: Albrecht, S. I.; Chadwick, B. A.; Alcorn, D. S. (1977). "Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 16 (3): 263–274. doi:10.2307/1385697.
Burkett, S.; White, M. (1974). "Hellfire and delinquency:Another look". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13 (4): 455–462. doi:10.2307/1384608.
Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the "true" relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
Cochran, J. K.; Akers, R. L. (1989). "Beyond hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26 (3): 198–225. doi:10.1177/0022427889026003002.
Evans, T. D.; Cullen, F. T.; Burton, V. S.; Jr; Dunaway, R. G.; Payne, G. L.; Kethineni, S. R. (1996). "Religion, social bonds, and delinquency". Deviant Behavior 17: 43–70. doi:10.1080/01639625.1996.9968014.
Grasmick, H. G.; Bursik, R. J.; Cochran, J. K. (1991). "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's": Religiosity and taxpayer's inclinations to cheat". The Sociological Quarterly 32: 251–266. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00356.x.
Higgins, P. C.; Albrecht, G. L. (1977). "Hellfire and delinquency revisited". Social Forces 55: 952–958. doi:10.1093/sf/55.4.952.
Johnson, B. R.; Larson, D. B.; DeLi, S.; Jang, S. J. (2000). "Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth". Justice Quarterly 17: 377–391. doi:10.1080/07418820000096371.
Johnson, R. E.; Marcos, A. C.; Bahr, S. J. (1987). "The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use". Criminology 25: 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00800.x.
Powell, K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38–47.
145.Jump up ^ Baier, C. J.; Wright, B. R. (2001). "If you love me, keep my commandments":A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38: 3–21. doi:10.1177/0022427801038001001.
146.Jump up ^ Conroy, S. J.; Emerson, T. L. N. (2004). "Business Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of Ethical Awareness Among Students". Journal of Business Ethics 50 (4): 383–396. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.41263.09.
147.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organizations
148.^ Jump up to: a b c "Religious people make better citizens, study says". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes – including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers."
149.Jump up ^ Campbell, David; Putnam, Robert (2010-11-14). "Religious people are 'better neighbors'". USA Today. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives."
150.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur. "Religious Faith and Charitable Giving".
151.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur C. "Religious faith and charitable giving", Policy Review, Oct–Dec 2003.
152.Jump up ^ Will, George F. "Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists", Washington Post, 27 March 2008; Page A17
153.^ Jump up to: a b Gose, Ben. "Charity's Political Divide", The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 23 November 2006.
154.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur C. Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, Basic Books, 27 November 2006. ISBN 0-465-00821-6
155.Jump up ^ Stossel, John; Kendall, Kristina (28 November 2006). "Who Gives and Who Doesn't? Putting the Stereotypes to the Test". ABC News.
156.Jump up ^ "Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians", The Barna Update, The Barna Group, 11 June 2007.
157.Jump up ^ Einstein, Albert (1930-11-09). "Religion and Science". New York Times Magazine. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
158.Jump up ^ "The Barna Update: Morality Continues to Decay" (archive copy at the Internet Archive), The Barna Group, November 3, 2003 ("The Barna Update: Morality Continues to Decay" – Summary version posted on the Barna website)
159.Jump up ^ "And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one's own existence."- Arthur Schopenhauer -On Religion: A Dialogue
160.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: Bantam Books, 2006. Print. Pp. 25, 28, 206, 367.
161.^ Jump up to: a b Richard Dawkins. "Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion". The God Delusion.
162.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "Is Religion Child Abuse?". God is Not Great.
163.^ Jump up to: a b "Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children.".[dead link]
164.Jump up ^ Cooperman, Alan (2002-06-20). "Anti-Muslim Remarks Stir Tempest". The Washington Post.
165.Jump up ^ Daragahi, Borzou (June 11, 2008). "Yemeni bride, 10, says I won't". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 16 February 2010.
166.Jump up ^ "Dead Yemeni child bride tied up, raped, says mom". Fox News. 2010-04-10.
167.Jump up ^ "Yemeni child bride dies of internal bleeding". CNN. 2010-04-09.
168.Jump up ^ "CNN article on 12 year old bride death". 2009-09-14.
169.Jump up ^ "Yemeni minister seeks law to end child marriage". BBC News. 2013-09-13.
170.Jump up ^ Compton, Todd (1997). In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books. ISBN 1-56085-085-X.
171.Jump up ^ Hirshon, Stanley P. (1969). The Lion of the Lord. Alfred A. Knopf.
172.Jump up ^ D’Onofrio, Eve (2005). "Child Brides, Inegalitarianism, and the Fundamentalist Polygamous Family in the United States". International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 19 (3): 373–394. doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebi028.
173.Jump up ^ "When Elton met Jake |". The Observer url=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,1942193,00.html (London). 13 November 2006.
174.Jump up ^ [1] quote - "Hinduism, unlike Christianity and Islam, does not view homosexuality as a religious sin."
175.Jump up ^ Simon, Stephanie (10 April 2006). "Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies". Los Angeles Times.
176.Jump up ^ Eke, Steven (28 July 2005). "Iran 'must stop youth executions'". BBC News. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
177.Jump up ^ Berlet, Chip (2004). "A New Face for Racism & Fascism". White Supremacist, Antisemitic, and Race Hate Groups in the U.S.: A Geneaology. Political Research Associates. Retrieved 2007-02-18.
178.Jump up ^ "Ostensibly scientific": cf. Adam Kuper, Jessica Kuper (eds.), The social science encyclopedia (1996), "Racism", p. 716: "This [sc. scientific] racism entailed the use of 'scientific techniques', to sanction the belief in European and American racial superiority"; Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Questions to sociobiology (1998), "Race, theories of", p. 18: "Its exponents [sc. of scientific racism] tended to equate race with species and claimed that it constituted a scientific explanation of human history"; Terry Jay Ellingson, The myth of the noble savage (2001), 147ff. "In scientific racism, the racism was never very scientific; nor, it could at least be argued, was whatever met the qualifications of actual science ever very racist" (p. 151); Paul A. Erickson,Liam D. Murphy, A History of Anthropological Theory (2008), p. 152: "Scientific racism: Improper or incorrect science that actively or passively supports racism".
179.Jump up ^ Abanes, Richard (2002). One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church. Four Walls Eight Windows. ISBN 1-56858-219-6.
180.Jump up ^ "The Primer, Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities: Fundamentalist Mormon Communities" (PDF). Utah Attorney General’s Office and Arizona Attorney General's Office. June 2006. p. 41. Retrieved 29 June 2010
181.Jump up ^ "Hate Groups Map: Utah". Southern Poverty Law Center.
182.Jump up ^ "Civil Rights Movement in the United States". MSN Encyclopedia Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 3 January 2007.
183.Jump up ^ "Religious Revivalism in the Civil Rights Movement". African American Review. Winter 2002. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
184.Jump up ^ "Martin Luther King: The Nobel Peace Prize 1964". The Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2006-01-03.
185.Jump up ^ http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/afghanistan0312webwcover_0.pdf
186.Jump up ^ Ahmed Obaid, Thoraya (6 February 2007). "Statement on the International Day Against Female Genital Mutilation". United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Retrieved 2008-02-08.
187.Jump up ^ http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/New-Report-Sharia-Law-in-Britain_fixed.pdf
188.Jump up ^ "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?". Middle East Forum. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
189.Jump up ^ "The Christian Men’s Oldest Prejudice: Misogyny, Hate Or Fear?". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
190.Jump up ^ Rogers, Katharine M. The Troublesome Helpmate: A History of Misogyny in Literature, 1966.
191.Jump up ^ Ruthven, K. K (1990). "Feminist literary studies: An introduction". ISBN 978-0-521-39852-7.
192.Jump up ^ Holland, Jack (2006). Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice (1st ed.). New York: Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-1823-4.
193.Jump up ^ Polly Toynbee. "Polly Toynbee: A woman's supreme right over her own body and destiny is in jeopardy - Comment is free - The Guardian". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
194.Jump up ^ "Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
195.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2006). Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. Grove Press. p. 37. ISBN 0-8021-4383-0.
196.Jump up ^ http://www.newsweek.com/book-excerpt-hitchenss-god-not-great-99357
197.Jump up ^ "Why do Western Women Convert? - Standpoint". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
198.Jump up ^ "Feminist Philosophy of Religion". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
199.Jump up ^ "Man's Dominion: The Rise of Religion and the Eclipse of Women's Rights - Google Search". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
200.Jump up ^ Teijlingen, Edwin R. (2004). Midwifery and the medicalization of childbirth: comparative perspectives. Nova Publishers. p. 46.
201.Jump up ^ Eller, Cynthia (1995). Living in the lap of the Goddess: the feminist spirituality movement in America. Beacon Press. pp. 170–175.
202.^ Jump up to: a b c Melzer, Emanuel (1997). No way out: the politics of Polish Jewry, 1935–1939. Hebrew Union College Press. pp. 81–90. ISBN 0-87820-418-0.
203.Jump up ^ Poliakov, Léon (1968). The History of Anti-semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 153. ISBN 0-8122-3766-8.
204.Jump up ^ Collins, Kenneth (November 2010). "A Community on Trial: The Aberdeen Shechita Case, 1893". Journal of Scottish Historical Studies 30: 75. doi:10.3366/jshs.2010.0103.
205.^ Jump up to: a b Shechita UK. "Why Do Jews Practice Shechita?". Chabad.org. Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center. Retrieved 2012-02-26.
206.Jump up ^ Grandin, Temple; Regenstein, Joe M. (March 1994). "Religious slaughter and animal welfare: a discussion for meat scientists.". Meat Focus International (CAB International): 115–123.
207.Jump up ^ Bleich, J. David (1989). Contemporary Halakhic Problems 3. KTAV Publishing House. "A number of medieval scholars regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal, not because of a concern for the welfare of animals, but because of the fact that the slaughter of animals might cause the individual who performs such acts to develop negative character traits, viz., meanness and cruelty"
208.Jump up ^ Scherer, Logan (December 8, 2009). "The Cruelty Behind Muslim Ritual Slaughter". PETA. Retrieved July 25, 2012.
209.Jump up ^ "Treatment of animals: Islam and animals". BBC. August 13, 2009. Retrieved July 25, 2012.
210.Jump up ^ "Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end'". BBC News. 2003-06-10.
211.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is not Great. pp. 155–169.
212.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara (1989). Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
213.Jump up ^ Ansell, Amy E (1998). Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3147-1.
214.Jump up ^ Schaeffer, Francis (1982). A Christian Manifesto. Crossway Books. ISBN 0-89107-233-0.
215.^ Jump up to: a b Barron, Bruce (1992). Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-53611-1.
216.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H.; Hankins, Barry (2003). New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Baylor University Press.
217.Jump up ^ Davidson, Carl; Harris, Jerry (2006). "Globalisation, theocracy and the new fascism: the US Right's rise to power". Race and Class 47 (3): 47–67. doi:10.1177/0306396806061086.
218.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1989. Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
219.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 0-89862-864-4.
220.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick (March/June 1994.). "Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence". The Public Eye 8 (1 & 2). Check date values in: |date= (help)
221.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick (1997). Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage. ISBN 1-56751-088-4.
222.Jump up ^ In her early work, Diamond sometimes used the term dominion theology to refer to this broader movement, rather than to the specific theological system of Reconstructionism.
223.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine (11 February 2004). "The Despoiling of America". Retrieved 3 October 2007.
224.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2004. Blood Guilty Churches, 19 January 2005. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
225.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2005. Yurica Responds to Stanley Kurtz Attack, 23 May 2005. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
226.Jump up ^ The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism By Chris Hedges, TheocracyWatch.
227.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris (May 2005). "Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters". Harper's. Retrieved 2007-04-11.
228.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Free Press, 2006.
229.Jump up ^ Maddox, Marion 2005. God under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics, Allen & Unwin.
230.Jump up ^ Rudin, James 2006. The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us, New York: Thunder's Mouth Press.
231.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam 2007. "God's dupes", Los Angeles Times, 15 March 2007. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
232.Jump up ^ "The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party", TheocracyWatch, Last updated: December 2005; URL accessed May 8, 2006.
233.Jump up ^ Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books.
234.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
235.Jump up ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy", Chalcedon Blog, 6 September 2007.
236.Jump up ^ Berlet, Chip, 2005. The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy. Retrieved 25 September 2007.
237.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1995. "Dominion Theology." Z Magazine, February 1995
238.Jump up ^ Anthony Williams (2005-05-04). "Dominionist Fantasies". FrontPage Magazine. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
239.^ Jump up to: a b Kurtz, Stanley (2005-05-02). "Dominionist Domination: The Left runs with a wild theory". National Review Online. Retrieved 2007-10-06.
240.Jump up ^ Kurtz, Stanley (28 April 2005). "Scary Stuff". National Review Online. Retrieved 2007-10-06.
Further reading[edit]
Mencken, H. L. (1930). Treatise on the Gods. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-8536-1.
Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I am not a Christian. Barlow Press. ISBN 1-4097-2721-1.
Ellens, J. Harold (2002). The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-99708-1.
External links[edit]
A Historical Outline of Modern Religious Criticism in Western Civilization
The Science of Religion by Gregory S. Paul
The Poverty of Theistic Morality by Adolf Grünbaum
Is there an Artificial God? by Douglas Adams



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion

























































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Philosophy of religion

































































































































































































































































































































































































Portal
Category





[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion






















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Atheism template.svgAtheism portal
 

  



Categories: Criticism of religion
Irreligion
Antireligion

























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
Bosanski
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
עברית
Kiswahili
Magyar
Bahasa Melayu
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 3 May 2015, at 21:51.
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/Criticism_of_religion















Criticism of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Religious criticism" redirects here. For other definitions of religious criticism, see Varieties of criticism § Religious criticism.
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
   
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 religion is criticism of the concepts, doctrines, validity, and/or practices of religion, including associated political and social implications.[1]
Criticism of religion has a long history. In ancient Greece, it goes at least as far back as the 5th century BCE with Diagoras "the atheist" of Melos; in ancient Rome, an early known example is from the 1st century BCE with Titus Lucretius Carus' De Rerum Natura. Criticism of religion is complicated by the fact that there exist multiple definitions and concepts of religion in different cultures and languages. With the existence of diverse categories of religion such as monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, nontheism and diverse specific religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and many others; it is not always clear to whom the criticisms are aimed at or to what extent they are applicable to other religions.
Critics often consider religion to be outdated, harmful to the individual, harmful to society, an impediment to the progress of science, a source of immoral acts or customs, and a political tool for social control.



Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Criticism of religious concepts 2.1 Conflicting claims of "one true faith"
2.2 Lack of permanence
3 Explanations as non-divine in origin 3.1 Social construct
3.2 Narratives to provide comfort and meaning 3.2.1 Opium of the people
3.3 Viruses of the mind
3.4 Mental illness or delusion
3.5 Immature stage of societal development
4 Harm to individuals 4.1 Inadequate medical care
4.2 Jerusalem syndrome
4.3 Issues related to sexuality
4.4 Honor killings and stoning
4.5 Blood sacrifice
4.6 Genital modification and mutilation
4.7 Counterarguments
5 Harm to society 5.1 Holy war and religious terrorism 5.1.1 Arguments against religion being a significant cause of violence
5.2 Suppression of scientific progress
5.3 Counterarguments to religion as harmful to society
6 Morality 6.1 Children
6.2 Homosexuals
6.3 Racism
6.4 Women
6.5 Animals
7 Corrupt purposes of leaders 7.1 Corrupt or immoral leaders
7.2 Dominionism
8 See also 8.1 Criticism of specific religions
8.2 Notable critics of religion
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links

History[edit]
The 1st century BCE Roman poet, Titus Lucretius Carus, in his work De Rerum Natura, wrote: "But 'tis that same religion oftener far / Hath bred the foul impieties of men:"[2] A philosopher of the Epicurean school, Lucretius believed the world was composed solely of matter and void, and that all phenomena could be understood as resulting from purely natural causes. Lucretius, like Epicurus, felt that religion was born of fear and ignorance, and that understanding the natural world would free people of its shackles;[3] however, he did believe in gods.[4] He was not against religion in and of itself, but against traditional religion which he saw as superstition for teaching that gods interfered with the world.[5]
Niccolò Machiavelli, at the beginning of the 16th century said: "We Italians are irreligious and corrupt above others... because the church and her representatives have set us the worst example."[6] To Machiavelli, religion was merely a tool, useful for a ruler wishing to manipulate public opinion.[7]
In the 18th century Voltaire was a deist and was strongly critical of religious intolerance. Voltaire complained about Jews killed by other Jews for worshiping a golden calf and similar actions, he also condemned how Christians killed other Christians over religious differences and how Christians killed Native Americans for not being baptised. Voltaire claimed the real reason for these killings was that Christians wanted to plunder the wealth of those killed. Voltaire was also critical of Muslim intolerance.[8]
Also in the 18th century David Hume criticised teleological arguments for religion. Hume claimed that natural explanations for the order in the universe were reasonable, see Design argument. Demonstrating the unsoundness of the philosophical basis for religion was an important aim of Hume's writings.[9]
In the early 21st century the New Atheists, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, were prominent as critics of religion.[10][11]
Criticism of religious concepts[edit]
See also: Faith and rationality



 A sign that criticizes religion and draws attention to the September 11 attacks, by the Connecticut Valley Atheists in Rockville's Central Park, Vernon in December 2007. The group issued an explanatory press release, stating: "Clearly, 9/11 is the work of fanatics. However, we feel that religion even in moderation provides a foundation for fanatical groups to thrive."[12]
Some criticisms on monotheistic religions have been:
Sometimes conflict with science.[13]
Requiring behaviors that are not sensible (i.e. Old Testament prohibition against wearing garments of mixed fabrics, or punishing children of guilty parents).[14]
Revelations may conflict internally (i.e. discrepancies in the Bible among the four Gospels of the New Testament).[15][16][17]
Conflicting claims of "one true faith"[edit]
See also: Argument from inconsistent revelations
In the context of theistic belief, Stephen Roberts[18] has claimed that he dismisses all gods in the same way others dismiss all other gods.[19]
Lack of permanence[edit]
Opsopaus and Hitchens note obsolete religions — which no longer have active adherents — are evidence that religions are not everlasting.[20] Including Greek mythology, Millerism, Roman mythology, Sabbatai Sevi, and Norse mythology.[21]
Explanations as non-divine in origin[edit]
Social construct[edit]



Christopher Hitchens, journalist and author of God is not Great
See also: Development of religion
Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens have asserted that theist religions and their scriptures are not divinely inspired, but man made to fulfill social, biological, and political needs.[22][page needed][23][page needed][24][page needed] Dawkins balances the benefits of religious beliefs (mental solace, community-building, promotion of virtuous behavior) against the drawbacks.[25][page needed] Such criticisms treat religion as a social construct[26] and thus just another human ideology.
Narratives to provide comfort and meaning[edit]
Daniel Dennett has argued that, with the exception of more modern religions such as Raëlism, Mormonism, Scientology, and the Bahá'í Faith, most religions were formulated at a time when the origin of life, the workings of the body, and the nature of the stars and planets were poorly understood.[27]
These narratives were intended to give solace and a sense of relationship with larger forces. As such, they may have served several important functions in ancient societies. Examples include the views many religions traditionally had towards solar and lunar eclipses, and the appearance of comets (forms of astrology).[28][29] Given current understanding of the physical world, where human knowledge has increased dramatically; Hitchens, Dawkins, and French atheist philosopher Michel Onfray contend that continuing to hold on to these belief systems is irrational and no longer useful.[24][25][30]
Opium of the people[edit]



Karl Marx
Religious suffering is, at the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
—Karl Marx[31]
According to Karl Marx, the father of "scientific socialism", religion is a tool used by the ruling classes whereby the masses can shortly relieve their suffering via the act of experiencing religious emotions. It is in the interest of the ruling classes to instill in the masses the religious conviction that their current suffering will lead to eventual happiness. Therefore as long as the public believes in religion, they will not attempt to make any genuine effort to understand and overcome the real source of their suffering, which in Marx's opinion was their capitalist economic system. In this perspective, Marx saw religion as escapism.[31]
Marx also viewed the Christian doctrine of original sin as being deeply anti-social in character. Original sin, he argued, convinces people that the source of their misery lies in the inherent and unchangeable "sinfulness" of humanity rather than in the forms of social organization and institutions, which, Marx argued, can be changed through the application of collective social planning.[32]
Viruses of the mind[edit]



Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion
In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins coined the term memes to describe informational units that can be transmitted culturally, analogous to genes.[33] He later used this concept in the essay "Viruses of the Mind" to explain the persistence of religious ideas in human culture.[34]
John Bowker criticized the idea that "God" and "Faith" are viruses of the mind, suggesting that Dawkins' "account of religious motivation ... is ... far removed from evidence and data" and that, even if the God-meme approach were valid, "it does not give rise to one set of consequences ... Out of the many behaviours it produces, why are we required to isolate only those that might be regarded as diseased?"[35] Alister McGrath has responded by arguing that "memes have no place in serious scientific reflection",[36] that there is strong evidence that such ideas are not spread by random processes, but by deliberate intentional actions,[37] that "evolution" of ideas is more Lamarckian than Darwinian,[38] and that there is no evidence (and certainly none in the essay) that epidemiological models usefully explain the spread of religious ideas.[39] McGrath also cites a metareview of 100 studies[citation needed] and argues that "if religion is reported as having a positive effect on human well-being by 79% of recent studies in the field, then it cannot be conceivably regarded as analogous to a virus?"[40]
Mental illness or delusion[edit]



 Bodies recovered from the Jonestown massacre, in which members of a religious cult committed a mass murder/suicide
Richard Dawkins argues that religious belief often involves delusional behavior.[25] Others, such as Sam Harris, compare religion to mental illness, saying it "allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy."[41]
There are also psychological studies into the phenomenon of mysticism, and the links between disturbing aspects of certain mystic's experiences and their links to childhood abuse.[42][43][44] In another line of research, Clifford A. Pickover explores evidence suggesting that temporal lobe epilepsy may be linked to a variety of spiritual or ‘other worldly’ experiences, such as spiritual possession, originating from altered electrical activity in the brain.[45] Carl Sagan, in his last book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, presented his case for the miraculous sightings of religious figures in the past and the modern sightings of UFOs coming from the same mental disorder. According to Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, "It's possible that many great religious leaders had temporal lobe seizures and this predisposes them to having visions, having mystical experiences."[46] Michael Persinger stimulated the temporal lobes of the brain artificially with a magnetic field using a device nicknamed the "God helmet," and was able to artificially induce religious experiences along with near-death experiences and ghost sightings.[47] John Bradshaw has stated, "Some forms of temporal lobe tumours or epilepsy are associated with extreme religiosity. Recent brain imaging of devotees engaging in prayer or transcendental meditation has more precisely identified activation in such sites — God-spots, as Vilayanur Ramachandran calls them. Psilocybin from mushrooms contacts the serotonergic system, with terminals in these and other brain regions, generating a sense of cosmic unity, transcendental meaning and religious ecstasy. Certain physical rituals can generate both these feelings and corresponding serotonergic activity."[48]
Keith Ward in his book Is Religion Dangerous? addresses the claim that religious belief is a delusion. He quotes the definition in the Oxford Companion to Mind as "a fixed, idiosyncratic belief, unusual in the culture to which the person belongs," and notes that "[n]ot all false opinions are delusions." Ward then characterizes a delusion as a "clearly false opinion, especially as a symptom of a mental illness," an "irrational belief" that is "so obviously false that all reasonable people would see it as mistaken." He then says that belief in God is different, since "[m]ost great philosophers have believed in God, and they are rational people". He argues that "[a]ll that is needed to refute the claim that religious belief is a delusion is one clear example of someone who exhibits a high degree of rational ability, who functions well in the ordinary affairs of life ... and who can produce a reasonable and coherent defense of their beliefs" and claims that there are many such people, "including some of the most able philosophers and scientists in the world today."[49]
Immature stage of societal development[edit]



Philosophy and Christian Art. W. Ridgway, 1878
Philosopher Auguste Comte posited that many societal constructs pass through three stages, and that religion corresponds to the two earlier, or more primitive stages by stating: "From the study of the development of human intelligence, in all directions, and through all times, the discovery arises of a great fundamental law, to which it is necessarily subject, and which has a solid foundation of proof, both in the facts of our organization and in our historical experience. The law is this: that each of our leading conceptions – each branch of our knowledge – passes successively through three different theoretical conditions: the theological, or fictitious; the metaphysical, or abstract; and the scientific, or positive." [50]
Harm to individuals[edit]
Some have criticized the effects of adherence to dangerous practices such as self-sacrifice,[51] as well as unnatural restrictions on human behavior (such as teetotalism and sexual prohibitions) and claim that these result in mental and emotional trauma of fear and guilt.[52]
Inadequate medical care[edit]



Saint Francis Borgia performing an exorcism, by Goya
See also: Exorcism and Faith healing
A detailed study in 1998 found 140 instances of deaths of children due to religion-based medical neglect. Most of these cases involved religious parents relying on prayer to cure the child's disease, and withholding medical care.[53]
Jerusalem syndrome[edit]
Main article: Jerusalem syndrome
Jerusalem has lent its name to a unique psychological phenomenon where Jewish or Christian individuals who develop obsessive religious themed ideas or delusions (sometimes believing themselves to be Jesus Christ or another prophet) will feel compelled to travel to Jerusalem.[54][55]
During a period of 13 years (1980–1993) for which admissions to the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Centre in Jerusalem were analyzed, it was reported[56] that 1,200 tourists with severe, Jerusalem-themed mental problems, were referred to this clinic. Of these, 470 were admitted to hospital. On average, 100 such tourists have been seen annually, 40 of them requiring admission to hospital. About 2 million tourists visit Jerusalem each year. Kalian and Witztum note that as a proportion of the total numbers of tourists visiting the city, this is not significantly different from any other city.[57][58] The statements of these claims has however been disputed, with the arguments that experiencers of the Jerusalem syndrome already were mentally ill.[57][59]
Issues related to sexuality[edit]
See also: Religion and sexuality
According to Christopher Hitchens, religion has opposed certain practices such as masturbation, or certain consensual sexual acts between adults that they see as "unnatural" and asked for their legal prohibition (see sodomy laws).[52]
Honor killings and stoning[edit]
Main articles: Honor killings and stoning
Still occurring in some parts of the world, an honor killing is when a person is killed by family for bringing dishonor or shame upon the family.[60] While religions such as Islam are often blamed for such acts, Tahira Shaid Khan, a professor of women's issues at Aga Khan University, notes that there is nothing in the Qur'an that permits or sanctions honor killings.[61] Khan instead blames it on attitudes (across different classes, ethnic and religious groups) that view women as property with no rights of their own as the motivation for honor killings.[61] Khan also argues that this view results in violence against women and their being turned "into a commodity which can be exchanged, bought and sold".[62]
Stoning is a form of capital punishment whereby a group throws stones at a person until death ensues. As of September 2010, stoning is a punishment that is included in the laws in some countries including Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, and some states in Nigeria[63] as punishment for zina al-mohsena ("adultery of married persons").[64] While stoning may not be codified in the laws of Afghanistan and Somalia, both countries have seen several incidents of stoning to death.[65][66]
Until the early 2000s, stoning was a legal form of capital punishment in Iran. In 2002, the Iranian judiciary officially placed a moratorium on stoning.[67] In 2005, judiciary spokesman Jamal Karimirad stated, "in the Islamic republic, we do not see such punishments being carried out", further adding that if stoning sentences were passed by lower courts, they were overruled by higher courts and "no such verdicts have been carried out."[68] In 2008, the judiciary decided to fully scrap the punishment from the books in legislation submitted to parliament for approval.[69] In early 2013, Iranian parliament published official report about excluding stoning from penal code and it accused Western media for spreading "noisy propaganda" about the case.[70]
Blood sacrifice[edit]
See also: Blood sacrifice and Human sacrifice
Hitchens claims that many religions endorse blood sacrifice, wherein innocent victims are killed or harmed to appease deities,[71] specifically citing Judaism for its obsession with blood and sacrifice, particularly the goal of identifying and sacrificing of a pure red heifer (described in Numbers 19), the pursuit of which Hitchens characterizes as "absurd", singling out the goal of raising a human child in a "bubble" so as to "be privileged to cut that heifer's throat".[72]
Genital modification and mutilation[edit]
Hitchens claims that many religions endorse male circumcision and female genital cutting, which he views as genital mutilation, and as immoral, unhealthy, and unnecessary.[73]
Counterarguments[edit]
Responding in the book The Irrational Atheist to criticisms that religion is harmful, Theodore Beale argues that religious individuals tend to be happier and healthier, more likely to have children, and more sexually satisfied than non-religious individuals.[74] There is substantial research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed.[75][76] Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[77] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[78] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[79][vague][80] Surveys suggest a strong link between faith and altruism.[81] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health,[82] and a meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 also found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[83] Andrew E. Clark and Orsolya Lelkes surveyed 90,000 people in 26 European countries and found that "[one's own] religious behaviour is positively correlated with individual life satisfaction.", greater overall "religiosity" in a region also correlates positively with "individual life satisfaction". The reverse was found to be true: a large "atheist" (non-religious) population "has negative spillover effects" for both the religious and non-religious members of the population.[84] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[85]
However, as of 2001, most of those studies were conducted within the United States.[86] There is no significant correlation between religiosity and individual happiness in Denmark and the Netherlands, countries that have lower rates of religion than the United States.[87] A cross-national investigation on subjective well-being has noted that, globally, religious people are usually happier than nonreligious people, though nonreligious people can also reach high levels of happiness.[88] The 2013 World Happiness Report mentions that once crude factors are taken into account, there are no differences in life satisfaction between religious and less religious countries, even though a meta analysis concludes that greater religiosity is mildly associated with fewer depressive symptoms and 75% of studies find at least some positive effect of religion on well-being.[89]
Harm to society[edit]
Some aspects of religion are criticized on the basis that they damage society as a whole. Steven Weinberg, for example, states it takes religion to make good people do evil.[90] Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins cite religiously inspired or justified violence, resistance to social change, attacks on science, repression of women, and homophobia.[91]
Hartung has claimed that major religious moral codes can lead to "us vs. them" group solidarity and mentality which can dehumanise or demonise individuals outside their group as "not fully human", or less worthy. Results can vary from mild discrimination to outright genocide.[92] A poll by The Guardian, a UK newspaper noted that 82% of the British people believe that religion is socially divisive and that this effect is harmful despite the observation that non-believers outnumber believers 2 to 1.[93]
Holy war and religious terrorism[edit]



 Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople by Gustave Doré (1832–1883)
Main articles: Religious war, Religious terrorism and Religious violence
Hitchens and Dawkins say that religions do tremendous harm to society in three ways:[24][page needed][25][page needed]
Religions sometimes encourage war (Crusades, Jihad), violence, and terrorism to promote their religious goals
Religious leaders contribute to secular wars and terrorism by endorsing or supporting the violence
Religious fervor is exploited by secular leaders to support war and terrorism
Although the causes of terrorism are complex, it may be that terrorists are partially reassured by their religious views that God is on their side and will reward them in heaven for punishing unbelievers.[94][95]
These conflicts are among the most difficult to resolve, particularly where both sides believe that God is on their side and has endorsed the moral righteousness of their claims.[94] One of the most infamous quotes associated with religious fanaticism was made in 1209 during the siege of Béziers, a Crusader asked the Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric how to tell Catholics from Cathars when the city was taken, to which Amalric replied: "Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens," or "Kill them all; God will recognize his own."[96]
Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku considers religious terrorism as one of the main threats in humanity's evolution from a Type 0 to Type 1 civilization.[97]
Arguments against religion being a significant cause of violence[edit]



Michel Onfray, French philosopher who wrote the Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
Some argue that religious violence is mostly caused by misinterpretations of the relevant religions' ethical rules and a combination of non-religious factors.[98][99][100][101] This includes the claim that events like terrorist bombings are more politically motivated than religious.[100][102][103] Mark Juergensmeyer argues that religion "does not ordinarily lead to violence.That happens only with the coalescence of a peculiar set of circumstances—political, social, and ideological—when religion becomes fused with violent expressions of social aspirations, personal pride, and movements for political change."[104]:10 It is also argued that the same violence happens in non-religious countries or regimes such as in communist Soviet Union.[105][106][self-published source?][101][107]
Christopher Hitchens notes that "it is interesting to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists."[108] Richard Dawkins, in response to Pope Benedict's accusations that atheism was responsible for "some 20th-century atrocities", has replied: "how dare Ratzinger suggest that atheism has any connection whatsoever with their horrific deeds? Any more than Hitler and Stalin's non-belief in leprechauns or unicorns.... There is no logical pathway from atheism to wickedness."[109]
Suppression of scientific progress[edit]



Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition
John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, authors of the conflict thesis, have argued that when a religion offers a complete set of answers to the problems of purpose, morality, origins, or science, it often discourages exploration of those areas by suppressing curiosity, denies its followers a broader perspective, and can prevent social, moral and scientific progress. Examples cited in their writings include the trial of Galileo and Giordano Bruno's execution.
During the 19th century the conflict thesis developed. According to this model, any interaction between religion and science must inevitably lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas.[110] The historical conflict thesis was a popular historiographical approach in the history of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but its original form is almost entirely discarded by scholars today.[111][112][113] Despite that, conflict theory remains a popular view among the general public,[114] and has been publicized by the success of books such as The God Delusion.
Historians of science including John Hedley Brooke and Ronald Numbers consider the "religion vs. science" concept an oversimplification, and prefer to take a more nuanced view of the subject.[114][115] These historians cite, for example, the Galileo affair[116] and the Scopes trial,[117] and assert that these were not purely instances of conflict between science and religion; personal and political factors also weighed heavily in the development of each. In addition, some historians contend[citation needed] that religious organizations figure prominently in the broader histories of many sciences, with many of the scientific minds until the professionalization of scientific enterprise (in the 19th century) being clergy and other religious thinkers.[118][119][120] Some historians contend that many scientific developments, such as Kepler's laws[121] and the 19th century reformulation of physics in terms of energy,[122] were explicitly driven by religious ideas.
Recent examples of tensions have been the creation-evolution controversy, controversies over the use of birth control, opposition to research into embryonic stem cells, or theological objections to vaccination, anesthesia, and blood transfusion.[123][124][125][126][127]
Counterarguments against assumed conflict between the sciences and religions have been offered. For example, C. S. Lewis, a Christian, suggested that all religions, by definition, involve faith, or a belief in concepts that cannot be proven or disproven by the sciences. However, some religious beliefs have not been in line with views of the scientific community, for instance Young Earth creationism.[128] Though some who criticize religions subscribe to the conflict thesis, others do not. For example, Stephen Jay Gould agrees with C. S. Lewis and suggested that religion and science were non-overlapping magisteria.[129] Scientist Richard Dawkins has said that religious practitioners often do not believe in the view of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA).[130]
However, research on perceptions of science among the American public concludes that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science or with the seeking out of scientific knowledge, although there may be epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.[131][132] Even strict creationists tend to have very favorable views on science.[133] Also, cross-national studies, polled from 1981-2001, on views of science and religion have noted that countries with higher religiosity have stronger trust in science, whereas countries that are seen as more secular are more skeptical about the impact of science and technology.[134] Though the United States is a highly religious country compared to other advanced industrial countries, according to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes towards science are more favorable in the United States than Europe, Russia, and Japan.[133] A study on a national sample of US college students examined whether they viewed the science / religion relationship as reflecting primarily conflict, collaboration, or independence. The study concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move away from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than vice versa.[135]
Counterarguments to religion as harmful to society[edit]
One study notes that significant levels of social dysfunction are found in highly religious countries such as the US and that countries which have lower religiosity also tend to have lower levels of dysfunction though it is noted in a later edition that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.[136][137][138]
Other studies show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior, artruism and crime.[139][140][141][142][143][144] Indeed, a meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, "religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals' criminal behavior".[139] [140][141][145][146][147][148][149] One study revealed that, at least in the United States forty percent of worship service attenders volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[148] Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).[148] Other research has shown similar correlations between religiosity and giving.[150][151][152][153][153][154][155] In similar surveys, those who attended church were also more likely to report that they were registered to vote, that they volunteered, that they personally helped someone who was homeless, and to describe themselves as "active in the community."[156]
Morality[edit]
See also: Human sacrifice, Morality and religion and Religious intolerance
Dawkins contends that theistic religions devalue human compassion and morality. In his view, the Bible contains many injunctions against following one's conscience over scripture, and positive actions are supposed to originate not from compassion, but from the fear of punishment.[25] Albert Einstein stated that no religious basis is needed in order to display ethical behavior.[157]
Survey research suggests that believers do tend to hold different views than non-believers on a variety of social, ethical and moral questions. According to a 2003 survey conducted in the United States by The Barna Group, those who described themselves as believers were less likely than those describing themselves as atheists or agnostics to consider the following behaviors morally acceptable: cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage, enjoying sexual fantasies, having an abortion, sexual relationships outside of marriage, gambling, looking at pictures of nudity or explicit sexual behavior, getting drunk, and "having a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex."[158]
Children[edit]
See also: Indoctrination, Mind control, Religion and children and Child marriage
In the 19th century, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer argued that teaching some ideas to children at a young age could foster resistance to doubting those ideas later on.[159] Richard Dawkins maintains that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated because they do not have yet sufficient maturity and knowledge to make their own conclusions.[160] Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins use the term child abuse to describe what they see as the harm inflicted on children by some religious upbringings.[161][162]
Dawkins states that labeling children as "Muslim child" or "Catholic child" is unreasonable since children are not mature enough to decide major questions in life for themselves. In his view, no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child", for instance.[161] He suggests such labeling is not seen as controversial because of the "weirdly privileged status of religion".
Islam[163] has permitted the child marriage of older men to girls as young as 9 years of age. Baptist pastor Jerry Vines has cited the age of one of Muhammad's wives, Aisha, to denounce him for having had sex with a nine-year-old, referring to Muhammad as a pedophile.[164]
The Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children describes cases of a 10-year-old girl being married and raped in Yemen (Nujood Ali),[165] a 13-year-old Yemeni girl dying of internal bleeding three days after marriage,[166][167] and a 12-year-old girl dying in childbirth after marriage.[163][168] Yemen currently does not have a minimum age for marriage.[169]
Latter Day Saint church founder Joseph Smith married girls as young as 13 and 14,[170] and other Latter Day Saints married girls as young as 10.[171] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints eliminated underaged marriages in the 19th century, but several branches of Mormonism continue the practice.[172]
Homosexuals[edit]


A Westboro Baptist Church picket in Northlake, Illinois, US on November 29, 2005
Main article: Homosexuality and religion
Elton John has said that organized religion promotes the hatred of homosexuals.[173] Unlike many other religions, Hinduism does not view homosexuality as an issue.[174]
In the United States, conservative Christian groups such as the Christian Legal Society and the Alliance Defense Fund have filed numerous lawsuits against public universities, aimed at overturning policies that protect homosexuals from discrimination and hate speech. These groups argue that such policies infringe their right to freely exercise religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.[175]
Homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, and several of these countries impose the death penalty for homosexual behavior. In July 2005, two Iranian men, aged sixteen and eighteen, were publicly hanged for homosexuality, causing an international outcry.[176]
Racism[edit]



 Burning cross often used by Ku Klux Klan to intimidate minorities
Religion has been used by some as justification for advocating racism. The Christian Identity movement has been associated with racism.[177] There are arguments, however, that these positions may be as much reflections of contemporary social views as of what has been called scientific racism.[178]
The LDS Church excluded blacks from the priesthood in the church, from 1860 to 1978.[179] Most Fundamentalist Mormon sects within the Latter Day Saint movement, rejected the LDS Church’s 1978 decision to allow African Americans to hold the priesthood, and continue to deny activity in the church due to race.[180] Due to these beliefs, in its Spring 2005 "Intelligence Report", the Southern Poverty Law Center named the FLDS Church to its "hate group" listing[181] because of the church's teachings on race, which include a fierce condemnation of interracial relationships.
On the other hand, many Christians have made efforts toward establishing racial equality, contributing to the Civil Rights Movement.[182] The African American Review sees as important the role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement.[183] 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.[184]
Women[edit]
See also: Gender and religion, Christianity and domestic violence, Islam and domestic violence and Misogyny
Islamic laws have been criticized by human rights organizations for exposing women to mistreatment and violence, preventing women from reporting rape, and contributing to the discrimination of women.[185] Hitchens and the United Nations also say that Islam is used to justify unnecessary and harmful female genital mutilation (FGM), when the purposes range from deprivation of sexual satisfaction to discourage adultery, insuring virginity to their husbands, or generating appearance of virginity.[73][186] Maryam Namazie argues that women are victimized under Sharia law, both in criminal matters (such as punishment for improper veiling) and in civil matters, and also that women have judicial hurdles that are lenient or advantageous for men.[187]
According to Phyllis Chesler, Islam is connected to violence against women, especially in the form of honor killings. She rejects the argument that honor killings are not related to Islam, and claims that while fundamentalists of all religions place restrictions on women, in Islam not only are these restrictions harsher, but Islam also reacts more violently when these rules are broken.[188]
Christianity has been criticized for painting women as sinful, untrustful, deceiving, and desiring to seduce and incite men into sexual sin.[189] Katharine M. Rogers argues that Christianity is misogynistic, and that the "dread of female seduction" can be found in St. Paul's epistles.[190] K. K. Ruthven argues that the "legacy of Christian misogyny was consolidated by the so-called 'Fathers' of the Church, like Tertullian, who thought a woman was not only 'the gateway of the devil' but also 'a temple built over a sewer'."[191] Jack Holland argues the concept of fall of man is misogynistic as "a myth that blames woman for the ills and sufferings of mankind".[192]
According to Polly Toynbee, religion interferes with physical autonomy, and fosters negative attitudes towards women's bodies. Toynbee writes that "Women's bodies are always the issue - too unclean to be bishops, and dangerous enough to be covered up by Islam and mikvahed by Judaism".[193]
One criticism of religion is that it contributes to unequal relations in marriage, creating norms which subordinate the wife to the husband. The word בעל (ba`al), Hebrew for husband, used throughout the Bible, is synonymous with owner and master.[194] Hitchens argued that the commandment of Thou shalt not covet is sexist because it "throws in 'wife' along with the other property, animal, human, and material, of the neighbor" and considers the wife as "chattel".[195] Hitchens pointed out that divorce in Ireland was only legalized in 1996, and argued that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland preferred for women to be trapped with violent husbands, rather than to change its dogma.[196]
Feminist Julie Bindel argues that religions encourage the domination of men over women, and that Islam promotes the submission of women to their husbands, and encourages practices such as child marriage. She wrote that religion "promotes inequality between men and women", that Islam's message for a woman includes that "she will be subservient to her husband and devote her life to pleasing him", and that "Islam's obsession with virginity and childbirth has led to gender segregation and early marriage.[197] Another feminist criticism of religion is the portrayal of God as an omnipotent, perfect power, where this power is one of domination, which is persistently associated with the characteristics of ideal masculinity.[198] Sheila Jeffreys argues that "Religion gives authority to traditional, patriarchal beliefs about the essentially subordinate nature of women and their naturally separate roles, such as the need for women to be confined to the private world of the home and family, that women should be obedient to their husbands, that women's sexuality should be modest and under the control of their menfolk, and that women should not use contraception or abortion to limit their childbearing. The practice of such ancient beliefs interferes profoundly with women's abilities to exercise their human rights".[199]
Christian religious figures have been involved in the Middle Ages and early modern period Witch trials, which were generally used to punish assertive or independent women, such as midwives, since witchcraft was often not in evidence,[200] or activists.[201]
Animals[edit]



Shechita
Kosher slaughter has historically attracted criticism from non-Jews as allegedly being inhumane and unsanitary,[202] in part as an antisemitic canard that eating ritually slaughtered meat caused degeneration,[203] and in part out of economic motivation to remove Jews from the meat industry.[202] Sometimes, however, these criticisms were directed at Judaism as a religion. In 1893, animal advocates campaigning against kosher slaughter in Aberdeen attempted to link cruelty with Jewish religious practice.[204] In the 1920s, Polish critics of kosher slaughter claimed that the practice actually had no basis in Scripture.[202] In contrast, Jewish authorities argue that the slaughter methods are based directly upon Genesis IX:3, and that "these laws are binding on Jews today."[205]
Supporters of kosher slaughter counter that Judaism requires the practice precisely because it is considered humane.[205] Research conducted by Temple Grandin and Joe M. Regenstein in 1994 concluded that, practiced correctly with proper restraint systems, kosher slaughter results in little pain and suffering, and notes that behavioral reactions to the incision made during kosher slaughter are less than those to noises such as clanging or hissing, inversion or pressure during restraint.[206] Those who practice and subscribe religiously and philosophically to Jewish vegetarianism disagree, stating that such slaughter is not required, while a number, including medieval scholars of Judaism such as Joseph Albo and Isaac Arama, regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal, not just out of a concern for animal welfare but also the slaughterer.[207]
Other forms of ritual slaughter, such as Islamic ritual slaughter, have also come under controversy. Logan Scherer, writing for PETA, said that animals sacrificed according to Islamic law can not be stunned before they are killed.[208] Muslims are only allowed to eat meat that has been killed according to Sharia law, and they say that Islamic law on ritual slaughter is designed to reduce the pain and distress that the animal suffers.[209]
According to the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), Halal and Kosher practices should be banned because when animals are not stunned before death, they suffer needles pain for up to 2 minutes, however, Muslims and Jews argue that loss of blood from slash to the throat renders the animals unconscious pretty quickly.[210]
Corrupt purposes of leaders[edit]
Corrupt or immoral leaders[edit]



 Caricature of Mormon leader Brigham Young's wives at his death
Hitchens has noted some leaders who have abused their positions for financial gains such as the Indian mystic Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who owned 90 Rolls Royce cars, cult leader David Koresh, Joseph Smith who had about 27 wives, and Brigham Young who had about 57 wives.[211]
Dominionism[edit]
Main article: Dominionism
See also: Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism
The term dominionism is often used to describe a political movement among fundamentalist Christians. Critics view dominionism as an attempt to improperly impose Christianity as the national faith of the United States. It emerged in the late 1980s inspired by the book, film and lecture series, "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" by Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop.[212] Schaeffer's views influenced conservatives like Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, John W. Whitehead, and although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists believe they have a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society", either by putting fundamentalist Christians in office, or by introducing biblical law into the secular sphere.[123][213][214] Social scientists have used the word "dominionism" to refer to adherence to Dominion Theology[215][216][217] as well as to the influence in the broader Christian Right of ideas inspired by Dominion Theology.[215]
In the early 1990s, sociologist Sara Diamond[218][219] and journalist Frederick Clarkson[220][221] defined dominionism as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right.[222] Beginning in 2004 with essayist Katherine Yurica,[223][224][225] a group of authors including journalist Chris Hedges[226][227][228] Marion Maddox,[229] James Rudin,[230] Sam Harris,[231] and the group TheocracyWatch[232] began applying the term to a broader spectrum of people than have sociologists such as Diamond.
Full adherents to reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[233][page needed][234][235] The terms "dominionist" and "dominionism" are rarely used for self-description, and their usage has been attacked from several quarters. Chip Berlet wrote that "some critics of the Christian Right have stretched the term dominionism past its breaking point."[236] Sara Diamond wrote that "[l]iberals' writing about the Christian Right's take-over plans has generally taken the form of conspiracy theory."[237] Journalist Anthony Williams charged that its purpose is "to smear the Republican Party as the party of domestic Theocracy, facts be damned."[238] Stanley Kurtz labeled it "conspiratorial nonsense," "political paranoia," and "guilt by association,"[239] and decried Hedges' "vague characterizations" that allow him to "paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless 'Dominionist' Christian mass."[240] Kurtz also complained about a perceived link between average Christian evangelicals and extremism such as Christian Reconstructionism.[239]
See also[edit]
Anthropology of religion
Antireligion
Antitheism
Atheism
Biblical inerrancy
Christianity and violence
Civil religion
Cognitive dissonance
Conversational intolerance
Deism
Development of religion
Folk religion
God is dead
Metaethics
Morality without religion
Philosophy of religion
Problem of evil
Theodicy
Psychology of religion
Rationalism
Religion
Religiosity and intelligence
Religious belief
Religious paranoia
Religious satire
Russell's teapot
Social criticism
Sociology of religion
Supernatural
Superstition
Theism
Theology
True-believer syndrome
Criticism of specific religions[edit]
Controversies about Opus Dei
Criticism of Buddhism
Criticism of Christianity
Criticism of Hinduism
Criticism of Islam
Criticism of Jainism
Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses
Criticism of Judaism
Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Criticism of Sikhism
Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church
Scientology controversy
Notable critics of religion[edit]
Douglas Adams
George Carlin
Daniel Dennett
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
Christopher Hitchens
Baron d'Holbach
David Hume
Friedrich Nietzsche
Thomas Paine
Bertrand Russell
Dayanand Saraswati
Mark Twain
Voltaire
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Beckford, James A. (2003). Social Theory and Religion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-521-77431-4.
2.Jump up ^ Titus Lucretius Carus. "De Rerum Natura". Retrieved 2007-08-05.
3.Jump up ^ "Lucretius (c.99 – c.55 BCE)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2007-08-05.
4.Jump up ^ "Lucretius – Stanford Encyclopedia". Retrieved 19 April 2012.
5.Jump up ^ Lucretius (1992). On the Nature of Things Translated by W.H.D. Rouse. Harvard University Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-674-99200-8. "This (superstition) or "false religion", not "religion," is the meaning of "religio". The Epicureans were opposed, not to religion (cf. 6.68–79), but to traditional religion which taught that the gods govern the world. That Lucretius regarded "religio" as synonymous with "superstitio" is implied by "super....instans" in [line] 65."
6.Jump up ^ Middlemore, S. G. C.; Burckhardt, Jacob; Murray, Peter; Burke, Peter (1990). The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. Penguin Classics. ISBN 0-14-044534-X.
7.Jump up ^ Machiavelli, Nicolo (1532). "The Prince". Retrieved 2007-08-10.
8.Jump up ^ "Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
9.Jump up ^ "Hume on Religion". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
10.Jump up ^ Bailey, David. "What are the merits of recent claims by atheistic scholars that modern science proves religion to be false and vain?".
11.Jump up ^ "The New Atheists". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
12.Jump up ^ "The Vernon Atheist Display," Press Release, CT Valley Atheists, December 17, 2007 . Retrieved October 1, 2008.
13.Jump up ^ White, Andrew D. (1993). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom : Two volumes. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0879758260.
14.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is Not Great. Random House, Inc. p. 99. ISBN 0-7710-4142-X.
15.Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman; Misquoting Jesus, 166
16.Jump up ^ Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration, pp. 199–200
17.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1999-05-18). The Birth of the Messiah: a commentary on the infancy narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. Yale University Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-300-14008-8.
18.Jump up ^ "History of The Quote". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
19.Jump up ^ Narciso, Dianna (2003). Like Rolling Uphill: realizing the honesty of atheism. Coral Springs, FL: Llumina Press. p. 6. ISBN 1-932560-74-2.
20.Jump up ^ Opsopaus, John. The Art of Haruspicy.
21.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 169–173.
22.Jump up ^ Dennett, Daniel (2006). Breaking the Spell. Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9789-3.
23.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith. W. W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-32765-5.
24.^ Jump up to: a b c Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve. ISBN 978-0-446-57980-3.
25.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
26.Jump up ^ Lim, Chaeyoon; Puntam, Robert (2010). "Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction". American Sociological Review 75 (6): 914–933. doi:10.1177/0003122410386686.
27.Jump up ^ Dennett, Daniel Clement (2006). Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Viking Adult. ISBN 0-670-03472-X.
28.Jump up ^ "When solar fears eclipse reason". BBC News. 2006-03-28. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
29.Jump up ^ "Comets in Ancient Cultures". NASA.
30.Jump up ^ Onfray, Michel (2007). Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Arcade Publishing. ISBN 1-55970-820-4.
31.^ Jump up to: a b Marx, Karl (February 1844). "Introduction". A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.
32.Jump up ^ Marx, Karl (1867). Das Kapital. Volume 1, Part VIII.
33.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The Selfish Gene, 30th Anniversary edition.
34.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (1991). "Viruses of the Mind".
35.Jump up ^ In his 1992–93 Gresham College lectures, written in collaboration with the psychiatrist Quinton Deeley and published as Is God a Virus?, SPCK, 1995, 274 pp. The quotes here come from p.73.
36.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.125, quoting Simon Conway Morris in support
37.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.126
38.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.127
39.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life pp.137–138
40.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.136, citing Koenig and Cohen, The Link between Religion and Health, OUP, 2002.
41.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith. W.W. Norton. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-393-03515-5.
42.Jump up ^ "The Psychology of Mysticism". The Primal page.
43.Jump up ^ "Mysticism and Psychopathology". The Primal page.
44.Jump up ^ Atlas, Jerrold (2003). "Medieval Mystics' Lives As Self-Medication for Childhood Abuse".
45.Jump up ^ Pickover, Clifford (September–October 1999). The Vision of the Chariot: Transcendent Experience and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Science & Spirit.
46.Jump up ^ "God on the Brain". BBC Science & Nature.
47.Jump up ^ Shermer, Michael (1999-11-01). "Why People Believe in God: An Empirical Study on a Deep Question". American Humanist Association. p. 2. Retrieved 2006-04-05.
48.Jump up ^ Bradshaw, John (18 June 2006). "A God of the Gaps?". Ockham’s Razor (ABC).
49.Jump up ^ Ward, Keith (2006). Is Religion Dangerous?. London:Lion Hudson Plc: Lion. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-7459-5262-8.
50.Jump up ^ Comte, Auguste. "Course of Positive Philosophy (1830)".
51.Jump up ^ Branden, N. (1963), "Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice," Ayn Rand – The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism.
52.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 205–217.
53.Jump up ^ Asser, S. M.; Swan, R (1998-Apr; vol 101 (issue 4 Pt 1)). "Child fatalities from religion-motivated medical neglect". Pediatrics 101 (4 Pt 1): pp 625–9. doi:10.1542/peds.101.4.625. PMID 9521945. Check date values in: |date= (help)
54.Jump up ^ "Jerusalem Syndrome: Jewish Virtual Library".
55.Jump up ^ "Jerusalem Syndrome".
56.Jump up ^ Bar-el, Y; Durst, R; Katz, G; Zislin, J; Strauss, Z; Knobler, HY. (2000). "Jerusalem syndrome". British Journal of Psychiatry 176 (1): 86–90. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.1.86.
57.^ Jump up to: a b Kalian, M; Witztum, E. (2000). "Comments on Jerusalem syndrome". British Journal of Psychiatry 176 (5): 492. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.5.492-a.
58.Jump up ^ Tannock C, Turner T. (1995) Psychiatric tourism is overloading London beds. BMJ 1995;311:806 Full Text
59.Jump up ^ Kalian, M; Witztum, E. (1999). "The Jerusalem syndrome"—fantasy and reality a survey of accounts from the 19th and 20th centuries". Isr. J. Psychiatry Relat Sci. 36 (4): 260–71. PMID 10687302.
60.Jump up ^ "Ethics - Honour crimes". BBC. 1970-01-01. Retrieved 2013-08-16.
61.^ Jump up to: a b Hilary Mantell Thousands of Women Killed for Family "Honor". National Geographic News. February 12, 2002
62.Jump up ^ "International Domestic Violence Issues". Sanctuary For Families. Retrieved 2011-12-05.
63.Jump up ^ Handley, Paul (11 Sep 2010). "Islamic countries under pressure over stoning". AFP. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
64.Jump up ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about Stoning". violence is not our culture. Retrieved 14 May 2013.
65.Jump up ^ Sommerville, Quentin (26 Jan 2011). "Afghan police pledge justice for Taliban stoning". BBC. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
66.Jump up ^ Nebehay, Stephanie (10 Jul 2009). "Pillay accuses Somali rebels of possible war crimes". Times of India. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
67.Jump up ^ "Iran 'adulterer' stoned to death". BBC News. 10 July 2007. Archived from the original on 3 December 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
68.Jump up ^ "Iran denies execution by stoning". BBC News. 11 January 2005. Retrieved 2010-09-23.
69.Jump up ^ "Iran to scrap death by stoning". AFP. August 6, 2008. Retrieved September 23, 2010.
70.Jump up ^ «سنگسار» در شرع حذف شدنی نیست
71.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 205–217.
72.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. p. 206.
73.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 223–226.
74.Jump up ^ Beale, Theodore as Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist, Benbella Books, 2008. ISBN 978-1-933771-36-6
75.Jump up ^ Rudin, Mike (30 April 2006). "The science of happiness". BBC. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
76.Jump up ^ Paul, Pamela (9 January 2005). "The New Science of Happiness". Time.
77.Jump up ^ Ward, Keith. Is Religion Dangerous?, p.156, citing David Myers The Science of Subjective Well-Being, Guilford Press, 2007.
78.Jump up ^ Smith, Timothy; McCullough, Michael; Poll, Justin (2003). "Religiousness and Depression: Evidence for a Main Effect and Moderating Influence of Stressful Life Events". Psychological Bulletin 129 (4): 614–36. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.614. PMID 12848223.
79.Jump up ^ Bryan Johnson & colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (2002)
80.Jump up ^ Is Religion Dangerous? cites similar results from the Handbook of Religion and Mental Health, Harold Koenig (ed.) ISBN 978-0-12-417645-4
81.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organizations
82.Jump up ^ Is Religion Dangerous?, Chapter 9.
83.Jump up ^ Hackney, Charles H.; Sanders, Glenn S. (2003). "Religiosity and Mental Health: A Meta–Analysis of Recent Studies". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42 (1): 43–55. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.t01-1-00160.
84.Jump up ^ Clark, A. E., & Lelkes, O. (January 2009). "Let us pray: religious interactions in life satisfaction", working paper no. 2009-01. Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques. Abstract retrieved July 2, 2009.
85.Jump up ^ Moreira-Almeida, Alexander; Neto, Francisco Lotufo; Koenig, Harold G. (September 2006). "Religiousness and mental health: a review". Rev. Bras. Psiquiatr. 28 (3): 242–250. doi:10.1590/S1516-44462006005000006. PMID 16924349.
86.Jump up ^ Koenig HG, McCullough M, Larson DB (2001). Handbook of Religion and Health. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 18.
87.Jump up ^ Snoep, Liesbeth (6 February 2007). "Religiousness and happiness in three nations: a research note". Journal of Happiness Studies.
88.Jump up ^ Ronald Inglehart (2010). "Faith and Freedom: Traditional and Modern Ways to Happiness". In Ed Diener, John F. Helliwell, Daniel Kahneman. International Differences in Well-Being. Oxford University Press. pp. 378–385. ISBN 978-0-19-973273-9.
89.Jump up ^ "World Happiness Report 2013" (PDF). Columbia University. pp. 71–72.
90.Jump up ^ Weinberg, Steven (April 1999). "A Designer Universe?". PhysLink.com. Washington, D.C. Retrieved 2010-02-22. "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."
91.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand. "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?". Retrieved 2009-10-23.
92.Jump up ^ Hartung, John (1995). "Love Thy Neighbour, The Evolution of In-Group Morality". Skeptic 3 (5).
93.Jump up ^ Julian Glover. "Religion does more harm than good - poll". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
94.^ Jump up to: a b Juergensmeyer, Mark (2001-09-21). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. Updated edition. University of California Press.
95.Jump up ^ "Christian Jihad: The Crusades and Killing in the Name of Christ". Cbn.com. 1998-02-23. Retrieved 2011-10-08.
96.Jump up ^ "Kill Them All; For The Lord Knoweth Them That Are His Steve Locks (Reply) (9-00)". Retrieved 2007-08-18.
97.Jump up ^ "Cover Story – businesstoday – February 2007". Apexstuff.com. 1947-01-24. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
98.Jump up ^ Kabbani, Hisham; Seraj Hendricks; Ahmad Hendricks. "Jihad — A Misunderstood Concept from Islam".
99.Jump up ^ Esposito, John (2005), Islam: The Straight Path, p.93.
100.^ Jump up to: a b Pape, Robert (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. New York, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-4000-6317-5.
101.^ Jump up to: a b Orr, H. Allen (1999). "Gould on God". bostonreview.net. Retrieved 24 January 2009.
102.Jump up ^ "Terrorism: The Current Threat", The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 10 February 2000.
103.Jump up ^ Nardin, Terry (May 2001). "Review of Terror in the Mind of God". The Journal of Politics (Southern Political Science Association) 64 (2): 683–684.
104.Jump up ^ Mark Juergensmeyer (2004). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24011-1.
105.Jump up ^ Feinberg, John S.; Feinberg, Paul D. (2010-11-04). Ethics for a Brave New World. Crossway Books. ISBN 978-1-58134-712-8. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'"
106.Jump up ^ Koukl, Gregory. "The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?". Stand To Reason. Retrieved 2007-10-18.
107.Jump up ^ D'Souza, Dinesh. "Answering Atheist’s Arguments". Catholic Education Resource Center. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist."
108.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great. p. 230.
109.Jump up ^ "Richard Dawkins Responds to Papal Attack on Atheists", The Atlantic Wire, September 2010.
110.Jump up ^ Wilson, David B. (2002). "The Historiography of Science and Religion". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
111.Jump up ^ Russell, Colin A. (2002). "The Conflict Thesis". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "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"
112.Jump up ^ Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. p. 195. "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"
113.Jump up ^ Brooke, J.H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. "In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited."
114.^ Jump up to: a b Ferngren, Gary (2002). "Introduction". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind"
115.Jump up ^ Russell, Colin A. (2002). "The Conflict Thesis". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is perceived by some historians as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science."
116.Jump up ^ Blackwell, Richard J. (2002). "Galileo Galilei". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
117.Jump up ^ Larson, Edward J. (1997). Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Battle over Science and Religion. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
118.Jump up ^ Rupke, Nicolaas A. (2002). "Geology and Paleontology". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
119.Jump up ^ Hess, Peter M. (2002). "Natural History". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
120.Jump up ^ Moore, James (2002). "Charles Darwin". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
121.Jump up ^ Barker, Peter; Goldstein, Bernard R. (2001). "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy". Osiris. Science in Theistic Contexts 16. University of Chicago Press. pp. 88–113.
122.Jump up ^ Smith, Crosbie (1998). The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. London: The Athlone Press.
123.^ Jump up to: a b Berlet, Chip. "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
124.Jump up ^ "Humanae Vitae: Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Regulation of Birth, July 25, 1968". The Vatican. Retrieved 2006-10-01.
125.Jump up ^ "MPs turn attack back on Cardinal Pell". Sydney Morning Herald. 2007-06-06.
126.Jump up ^ "Pope warns Bush on stem cells". BBC News. 2001-07-23.
127.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.
128.Jump up ^ "IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution" (PDF). the Interacademy Panel on international issues. 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-07-01. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
129.Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-45040-X.
130.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2007). The God Delusion (Paperback ed.). p. 77.
131.Jump up ^ Evans, John (2011). "Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50 (4): 707–727. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01603.x.
132.Jump up ^ Baker, Joseph O.; Public Understanding of Science (April 2012). "Public Perceptions of Incompatibility Between "Science and Religion"" 21 (3). pp. 340–353.
133.^ Jump up to: a b Keeter, Scott; Smith, Gregory; Masci, David (2011). "Religious Belief and Attitudes about Science in the United States". The Culture of science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. New York: Routledge. p. 336,345–346. ISBN 978-0415873697. "The United States is perhaps the most religious out of the advanced industrial democracies." ; "In fact, large majorities of the traditionally religious American nevertheless hold very positive views of science and scientists. Even people who accept a strict creationist view, regarding the origins of life are mostly favorable towards science." ; "According to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes about science are more favorable in the United States than in Europe, Russia, and Japan, despite great differences across these cultures in level of religiosity (National Science Foundation, 2008)."
134.Jump up ^ Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart (2011). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-1-107-64837-1.
135.Jump up ^ Christopher P. Scheitle (2011). "U.S. College students' perception of religion and science: Conflict, collaboration, or independence? A research note". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Blackwell) 50 (1): 175–186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. ISSN 1468-5906.
136.Jump up ^ "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies)". Retrieved 2007-10-30. "There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms."
137.Jump up ^ Moreno-Riaño, Gerson; Smith, Mark Caleb; Mach, Thomas (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health" (PDF). Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8.
138.Jump up ^ Jensen, Gary F. (2006) Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look, Journal of Religion and Society, Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University, Vol. 8, ISSN 1522-5658
139.^ Jump up to: a b Kerley, Kent R.; Matthews, Todd L.; Blanchard, Troy C. (2005). "Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4): 443–457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x.
140.^ Jump up to: a b Saroglou, Vassilis; Pichon, Isabelle; Trompette, Laurence; Verschueren, Marijke; Dernelle, Rebecca (2005). "Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3): 323–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x.
141.^ Jump up to: a b Regnerus, Mark D.; Burdette, Amy (2006). "Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics". The Sociological Quarterly 47 (1): 175–194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00042.x.
142.Jump up ^ for example, a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
143.Jump up ^ As is stated in: Doris C. Chu (2007). Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use" Criminal Justice and Behavior 2007; 34; 661 originally published online Mar 7, 2007; doi:10.1177/0093854806293485
144.Jump up ^ For example: Albrecht, S. I.; Chadwick, B. A.; Alcorn, D. S. (1977). "Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 16 (3): 263–274. doi:10.2307/1385697.
Burkett, S.; White, M. (1974). "Hellfire and delinquency:Another look". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13 (4): 455–462. doi:10.2307/1384608.
Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the "true" relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
Cochran, J. K.; Akers, R. L. (1989). "Beyond hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26 (3): 198–225. doi:10.1177/0022427889026003002.
Evans, T. D.; Cullen, F. T.; Burton, V. S.; Jr; Dunaway, R. G.; Payne, G. L.; Kethineni, S. R. (1996). "Religion, social bonds, and delinquency". Deviant Behavior 17: 43–70. doi:10.1080/01639625.1996.9968014.
Grasmick, H. G.; Bursik, R. J.; Cochran, J. K. (1991). "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's": Religiosity and taxpayer's inclinations to cheat". The Sociological Quarterly 32: 251–266. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00356.x.
Higgins, P. C.; Albrecht, G. L. (1977). "Hellfire and delinquency revisited". Social Forces 55: 952–958. doi:10.1093/sf/55.4.952.
Johnson, B. R.; Larson, D. B.; DeLi, S.; Jang, S. J. (2000). "Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth". Justice Quarterly 17: 377–391. doi:10.1080/07418820000096371.
Johnson, R. E.; Marcos, A. C.; Bahr, S. J. (1987). "The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use". Criminology 25: 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00800.x.
Powell, K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38–47.
145.Jump up ^ Baier, C. J.; Wright, B. R. (2001). "If you love me, keep my commandments":A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38: 3–21. doi:10.1177/0022427801038001001.
146.Jump up ^ Conroy, S. J.; Emerson, T. L. N. (2004). "Business Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of Ethical Awareness Among Students". Journal of Business Ethics 50 (4): 383–396. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.41263.09.
147.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organizations
148.^ Jump up to: a b c "Religious people make better citizens, study says". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes – including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers."
149.Jump up ^ Campbell, David; Putnam, Robert (2010-11-14). "Religious people are 'better neighbors'". USA Today. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives."
150.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur. "Religious Faith and Charitable Giving".
151.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur C. "Religious faith and charitable giving", Policy Review, Oct–Dec 2003.
152.Jump up ^ Will, George F. "Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists", Washington Post, 27 March 2008; Page A17
153.^ Jump up to: a b Gose, Ben. "Charity's Political Divide", The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 23 November 2006.
154.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur C. Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, Basic Books, 27 November 2006. ISBN 0-465-00821-6
155.Jump up ^ Stossel, John; Kendall, Kristina (28 November 2006). "Who Gives and Who Doesn't? Putting the Stereotypes to the Test". ABC News.
156.Jump up ^ "Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians", The Barna Update, The Barna Group, 11 June 2007.
157.Jump up ^ Einstein, Albert (1930-11-09). "Religion and Science". New York Times Magazine. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
158.Jump up ^ "The Barna Update: Morality Continues to Decay" (archive copy at the Internet Archive), The Barna Group, November 3, 2003 ("The Barna Update: Morality Continues to Decay" – Summary version posted on the Barna website)
159.Jump up ^ "And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one's own existence."- Arthur Schopenhauer -On Religion: A Dialogue
160.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: Bantam Books, 2006. Print. Pp. 25, 28, 206, 367.
161.^ Jump up to: a b Richard Dawkins. "Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion". The God Delusion.
162.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "Is Religion Child Abuse?". God is Not Great.
163.^ Jump up to: a b "Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children.".[dead link]
164.Jump up ^ Cooperman, Alan (2002-06-20). "Anti-Muslim Remarks Stir Tempest". The Washington Post.
165.Jump up ^ Daragahi, Borzou (June 11, 2008). "Yemeni bride, 10, says I won't". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 16 February 2010.
166.Jump up ^ "Dead Yemeni child bride tied up, raped, says mom". Fox News. 2010-04-10.
167.Jump up ^ "Yemeni child bride dies of internal bleeding". CNN. 2010-04-09.
168.Jump up ^ "CNN article on 12 year old bride death". 2009-09-14.
169.Jump up ^ "Yemeni minister seeks law to end child marriage". BBC News. 2013-09-13.
170.Jump up ^ Compton, Todd (1997). In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books. ISBN 1-56085-085-X.
171.Jump up ^ Hirshon, Stanley P. (1969). The Lion of the Lord. Alfred A. Knopf.
172.Jump up ^ D’Onofrio, Eve (2005). "Child Brides, Inegalitarianism, and the Fundamentalist Polygamous Family in the United States". International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 19 (3): 373–394. doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebi028.
173.Jump up ^ "When Elton met Jake |". The Observer url=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,1942193,00.html (London). 13 November 2006.
174.Jump up ^ [1] quote - "Hinduism, unlike Christianity and Islam, does not view homosexuality as a religious sin."
175.Jump up ^ Simon, Stephanie (10 April 2006). "Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies". Los Angeles Times.
176.Jump up ^ Eke, Steven (28 July 2005). "Iran 'must stop youth executions'". BBC News. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
177.Jump up ^ Berlet, Chip (2004). "A New Face for Racism & Fascism". White Supremacist, Antisemitic, and Race Hate Groups in the U.S.: A Geneaology. Political Research Associates. Retrieved 2007-02-18.
178.Jump up ^ "Ostensibly scientific": cf. Adam Kuper, Jessica Kuper (eds.), The social science encyclopedia (1996), "Racism", p. 716: "This [sc. scientific] racism entailed the use of 'scientific techniques', to sanction the belief in European and American racial superiority"; Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Questions to sociobiology (1998), "Race, theories of", p. 18: "Its exponents [sc. of scientific racism] tended to equate race with species and claimed that it constituted a scientific explanation of human history"; Terry Jay Ellingson, The myth of the noble savage (2001), 147ff. "In scientific racism, the racism was never very scientific; nor, it could at least be argued, was whatever met the qualifications of actual science ever very racist" (p. 151); Paul A. Erickson,Liam D. Murphy, A History of Anthropological Theory (2008), p. 152: "Scientific racism: Improper or incorrect science that actively or passively supports racism".
179.Jump up ^ Abanes, Richard (2002). One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church. Four Walls Eight Windows. ISBN 1-56858-219-6.
180.Jump up ^ "The Primer, Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities: Fundamentalist Mormon Communities" (PDF). Utah Attorney General’s Office and Arizona Attorney General's Office. June 2006. p. 41. Retrieved 29 June 2010
181.Jump up ^ "Hate Groups Map: Utah". Southern Poverty Law Center.
182.Jump up ^ "Civil Rights Movement in the United States". MSN Encyclopedia Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 3 January 2007.
183.Jump up ^ "Religious Revivalism in the Civil Rights Movement". African American Review. Winter 2002. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
184.Jump up ^ "Martin Luther King: The Nobel Peace Prize 1964". The Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2006-01-03.
185.Jump up ^ http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/afghanistan0312webwcover_0.pdf
186.Jump up ^ Ahmed Obaid, Thoraya (6 February 2007). "Statement on the International Day Against Female Genital Mutilation". United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Retrieved 2008-02-08.
187.Jump up ^ http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/New-Report-Sharia-Law-in-Britain_fixed.pdf
188.Jump up ^ "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?". Middle East Forum. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
189.Jump up ^ "The Christian Men’s Oldest Prejudice: Misogyny, Hate Or Fear?". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
190.Jump up ^ Rogers, Katharine M. The Troublesome Helpmate: A History of Misogyny in Literature, 1966.
191.Jump up ^ Ruthven, K. K (1990). "Feminist literary studies: An introduction". ISBN 978-0-521-39852-7.
192.Jump up ^ Holland, Jack (2006). Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice (1st ed.). New York: Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-1823-4.
193.Jump up ^ Polly Toynbee. "Polly Toynbee: A woman's supreme right over her own body and destiny is in jeopardy - Comment is free - The Guardian". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
194.Jump up ^ "Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
195.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2006). Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. Grove Press. p. 37. ISBN 0-8021-4383-0.
196.Jump up ^ http://www.newsweek.com/book-excerpt-hitchenss-god-not-great-99357
197.Jump up ^ "Why do Western Women Convert? - Standpoint". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
198.Jump up ^ "Feminist Philosophy of Religion". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
199.Jump up ^ "Man's Dominion: The Rise of Religion and the Eclipse of Women's Rights - Google Search". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
200.Jump up ^ Teijlingen, Edwin R. (2004). Midwifery and the medicalization of childbirth: comparative perspectives. Nova Publishers. p. 46.
201.Jump up ^ Eller, Cynthia (1995). Living in the lap of the Goddess: the feminist spirituality movement in America. Beacon Press. pp. 170–175.
202.^ Jump up to: a b c Melzer, Emanuel (1997). No way out: the politics of Polish Jewry, 1935–1939. Hebrew Union College Press. pp. 81–90. ISBN 0-87820-418-0.
203.Jump up ^ Poliakov, Léon (1968). The History of Anti-semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 153. ISBN 0-8122-3766-8.
204.Jump up ^ Collins, Kenneth (November 2010). "A Community on Trial: The Aberdeen Shechita Case, 1893". Journal of Scottish Historical Studies 30: 75. doi:10.3366/jshs.2010.0103.
205.^ Jump up to: a b Shechita UK. "Why Do Jews Practice Shechita?". Chabad.org. Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center. Retrieved 2012-02-26.
206.Jump up ^ Grandin, Temple; Regenstein, Joe M. (March 1994). "Religious slaughter and animal welfare: a discussion for meat scientists.". Meat Focus International (CAB International): 115–123.
207.Jump up ^ Bleich, J. David (1989). Contemporary Halakhic Problems 3. KTAV Publishing House. "A number of medieval scholars regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal, not because of a concern for the welfare of animals, but because of the fact that the slaughter of animals might cause the individual who performs such acts to develop negative character traits, viz., meanness and cruelty"
208.Jump up ^ Scherer, Logan (December 8, 2009). "The Cruelty Behind Muslim Ritual Slaughter". PETA. Retrieved July 25, 2012.
209.Jump up ^ "Treatment of animals: Islam and animals". BBC. August 13, 2009. Retrieved July 25, 2012.
210.Jump up ^ "Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end'". BBC News. 2003-06-10.
211.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is not Great. pp. 155–169.
212.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara (1989). Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
213.Jump up ^ Ansell, Amy E (1998). Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3147-1.
214.Jump up ^ Schaeffer, Francis (1982). A Christian Manifesto. Crossway Books. ISBN 0-89107-233-0.
215.^ Jump up to: a b Barron, Bruce (1992). Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-53611-1.
216.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H.; Hankins, Barry (2003). New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Baylor University Press.
217.Jump up ^ Davidson, Carl; Harris, Jerry (2006). "Globalisation, theocracy and the new fascism: the US Right's rise to power". Race and Class 47 (3): 47–67. doi:10.1177/0306396806061086.
218.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1989. Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
219.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 0-89862-864-4.
220.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick (March/June 1994.). "Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence". The Public Eye 8 (1 & 2). Check date values in: |date= (help)
221.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick (1997). Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage. ISBN 1-56751-088-4.
222.Jump up ^ In her early work, Diamond sometimes used the term dominion theology to refer to this broader movement, rather than to the specific theological system of Reconstructionism.
223.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine (11 February 2004). "The Despoiling of America". Retrieved 3 October 2007.
224.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2004. Blood Guilty Churches, 19 January 2005. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
225.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2005. Yurica Responds to Stanley Kurtz Attack, 23 May 2005. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
226.Jump up ^ The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism By Chris Hedges, TheocracyWatch.
227.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris (May 2005). "Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters". Harper's. Retrieved 2007-04-11.
228.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Free Press, 2006.
229.Jump up ^ Maddox, Marion 2005. God under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics, Allen & Unwin.
230.Jump up ^ Rudin, James 2006. The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us, New York: Thunder's Mouth Press.
231.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam 2007. "God's dupes", Los Angeles Times, 15 March 2007. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
232.Jump up ^ "The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party", TheocracyWatch, Last updated: December 2005; URL accessed May 8, 2006.
233.Jump up ^ Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books.
234.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
235.Jump up ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy", Chalcedon Blog, 6 September 2007.
236.Jump up ^ Berlet, Chip, 2005. The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy. Retrieved 25 September 2007.
237.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1995. "Dominion Theology." Z Magazine, February 1995
238.Jump up ^ Anthony Williams (2005-05-04). "Dominionist Fantasies". FrontPage Magazine. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
239.^ Jump up to: a b Kurtz, Stanley (2005-05-02). "Dominionist Domination: The Left runs with a wild theory". National Review Online. Retrieved 2007-10-06.
240.Jump up ^ Kurtz, Stanley (28 April 2005). "Scary Stuff". National Review Online. Retrieved 2007-10-06.
Further reading[edit]
Mencken, H. L. (1930). Treatise on the Gods. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-8536-1.
Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I am not a Christian. Barlow Press. ISBN 1-4097-2721-1.
Ellens, J. Harold (2002). The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-99708-1.
External links[edit]
A Historical Outline of Modern Religious Criticism in Western Civilization
The Science of Religion by Gregory S. Paul
The Poverty of Theistic Morality by Adolf Grünbaum
Is there an Artificial God? by Douglas Adams



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion

























































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Philosophy of religion

































































































































































































































































































































































































Portal
Category





[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion






















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Atheism template.svgAtheism portal
 

  



Categories: Criticism of religion
Irreligion
Antireligion

























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
Bosanski
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
עברית
Kiswahili
Magyar
Bahasa Melayu
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 3 May 2015, at 21:51.
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/Criticism_of_religion












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














Criticism of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about criticisms of the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance. For the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document, see Biblical criticism.

Crystal Clear app kedit.svg
 This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions. (February 2014)
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[hide]

Gnostic ·
 Islamic ·
 Qur'anic

Inerrancy ·
 Infallibility
 Criticism of the Bible

Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
The view that the Bible should be accepted as historically accurate and as a reliable guide to morality has been questioned by many scholars in the field of biblical criticism. In addition to concerns about morality, inerrancy, or historicity, there remain some questions of which books should be included in the Bible (see canon of scripture). Jews discount the New Testament and Old Testament Deuterocanonicals, Jews and most Christians discredit the legitimacy of New Testament apocrypha, and a view sometimes referred to as Jesusism does not affirm the scriptural authority of any biblical text other than the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.



Contents  [hide]
1 Bible history issues
2 Translation issues
3 Ethics in the Bible
4 Internal consistency
5 The Bible and science
6 The Bible and archaeology
7 Unfulfilled prophecies 7.1 Messianic prophecies
7.2 Prophecies after the event
7.3 The success of Joshua
7.4 The destruction of Tyre
7.5 The protection of the King of Judah
7.6 The death of the king of Judah
7.7 The death of Josiah
7.8 The land promised to Abraham
7.9 The fate of Damascus
7.10 The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt
7.11 The return of Jewish prisoners of war
7.12 The strength of Judah
7.13 The identity of the conquerors of Babylon
7.14 Jehoiakim prophecies
7.15 New Testament 7.15.1 The imminence of the second coming

8 Notable critics
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links

Bible history issues[edit]



 The Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible
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
   
Main articles: Biblical Criticism and Higher Criticism
The Hebrew Bible and Christian Bibles are works considered sacred and authoritative writings by their respective faith groups that revere their specific collections of biblical writings.[1] The Hebrew Bible, upon which the Christian Old Testament is based, was originally composed in Biblical Hebrew, except for parts of Daniel and Ezra that were written in Biblical Aramaic. These writings depict Israelite religion from its beginnings to about the 2nd century BC. The Christian New Testament was written in Koine Greek. (See Language of the New Testament for details.)
At the end of the 17th century few Bible scholars would have doubted that Moses wrote the Torah, but in the late 18th century some liberal scholars began to question his authorship, and by the end of the 19th century some went as far as to claim that as a whole the work was of many more authors over many centuries from 1000 BC (the time of David) to 500 BC (the time of Ezra), and that the history it contained was often more polemical rather than strictly factual. By the first half of the 20th century Hermann Gunkel had drawn attention to mythic aspects, 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.

While the limits of the canon were effectively set in these early centuries, the status of scripture has been a topic of scholarly discussion in the later church. Increasingly, the biblical works have been subjected to literary and historical criticism in efforts to interpret the texts independent of Church and dogmatic influences. Different views of the authority and inspiration of the Bible also continue to be expressed in liberal and fundamentalist churches today. What cannot be denied, however, is the enormous influence which the stories, poetry, and reflections found in the biblical writings have had, not only on the doctrines and practices of two major faiths, but also on Western culture, its literature, art, and music.[1]
In the 2nd century, the gnostics often claimed that their form of Christianity was the first, and they regarded Jesus as a teacher, or allegory.[2] Elaine Pagels has proposed that there are several examples of gnostic attitudes in the Pauline Epistles.[citation needed] Bart D. Ehrman and Raymond E. Brown note that some of the Pauline epistles are widely regarded by scholars as pseudonymous,[3] and it is the view of Timothy Freke, and others, that this involved a forgery in an attempt by the Church to bring in Paul's Gnostic supporters and turn the arguments in the other Epistles on their head.
Some critics have alleged that Christianity is not founded on a historical figure, but rather on a mythical creation.[4] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of a pan-Hellenic cult, known as Osiris-Dionysus,[5] which acknowledged the non-historic nature of the figure, using it instead as a teaching device.
Translation issues[edit]
Main articles: Biblical manuscripts, Textual criticism and Biblical inerrancy
Some critics express concern that none of the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible still exist. All translations of the Bible have been made from well-respected but centuries-old copies. Religious communities value highly those who interpret their scriptures at both the scholarly and popular levels. Translation of scripture into the vernacular (such as English and hundreds of other languages), though a common phenomenon, is also a subject of debate and criticism.[6]
Translation has led to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar and word meaning. While the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that "inerrancy" applies only to the original languages, some believers trust their own translation as the truly accurate one—for example, 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 many of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over correct interpretation occur. For instance, at creation(Gen 1:2), is רוח אלהים (ruwach 'elohiym) the "wind of god", "spirit of god"(i.e., the Holy Spirit in Christianity), or a "mighty wind" over the primordial deep? In Hebrew, רוח(ruwach) can mean "wind","breath" or "spirit". Both ancient and modern translators are divided over this and many other such ambiguities.[7][8][9][10] Another example is the word used in the Masoretic Text [Isa 7:14] to indicate the woman who would bear Immanuel is alleged to mean a young, unmarried woman in Hebrew, while Matthew 1:23 follows the Septuagint version of the passage that uses the Greek word parthenos, translated virgin, and is used to support the Christian idea of virgin birth. Those who view the masoretic text, which forms the basis of most English translations of the Old Testament, as being more accurate than the Septuagint, and trust its usual translation, may see this as an inconsistency, whereas those who take the Septuagint to be accurate may not.
In the History of the English Bible, there have been many changes to the wording, leading to several competing versions. Many of these have contained Biblical errata—typographic errors, such as the phrases Is there no treacle in Gilead?, Printers have persecuted me without cause, and Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?, and even Thou shalt commit adultery.[11]
More recently, several discoveries of ancient manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls, and Codex Sinaiticus, have led to modern translations like the New International Version differing somewhat from the older ones such as the 17th century King James Version, removing verses not present in the earliest manuscripts (see List of omitted Bible verses), some of which are acknowledged as interpolations, such as the Comma Johanneum, others having several highly variant versions in very important places, such as the resurrection scene in Mark 16. The King-James-Only Movement rejects these changes and uphold the King James Version as the most accurate.[12]
Ethics in the Bible[edit]
Main article: Ethics in the Bible
Certain moral decisions in the Bible are questioned by many modern groups. Some of the most commonly criticized ethical choices include subjugation of women, religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest,[13] toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments,[14] obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites. Christian Apologists support the Bible's decisions by reminding critics that they should be considered from the author's point of view and that Mosaic Law applied to the Israelite people (who lived before the birth of Jesus). Other religious groups see nothing wrong with the Bible's judgments.[15] One example that is often cited is the biblical law of the rebellious son:[16]

"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear." (Deut. 21:18-21)
Other critics of the Bible, such as Friedrich Nietzsche who popularized the phrase "God is dead",[17] have questioned the morality of the New Testament, regarding it as weak and conformist-oriented.
Internal consistency[edit]
Main article: Internal consistency of the Bible
There are many places in the Bible in which inconsistencies—such as different numbers and names for the same feature, and different sequences for the same events—have been alleged and presented by critics as difficulties.[18] Responses to these criticisms include the modern documentary hypothesis, the two-source hypothesis and theories that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous.[19]:p.47 Contrasting with these critical stances are positions supported by other authorities that consider the texts to be consistent. Such advocates maintain that the Torah was written by a single source, the Gospels by four independent witnesses, and all of the Pauline Epistles to have been written by the Apostle Paul.[citation needed]
However authors such as Raymond Brown have presented arguments that the Gospels actually contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details.[20] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders state that: "on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could".[21] More critical scholars see the nativity stories either as completely fictional accounts,[22] or at least constructed from traditions that predate the Gospels.[23][24]
For example, many versions of the Bible specifically point out that the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses did not include Mark 16:9-20, i.e., the Gospel of Mark originally ended at Mark 16:8, and additional verses were added a few hundred years later. This is known as the "Markan Appendix".[25][26][27]
Mosaic authorship, authorship of the Gospels and authorship of the Pauline Epistles are topics that remain widely debated.
The Bible and science[edit]
Main article: Science and the Bible
The universe, as presented literally in the Bible, consists of a flat earth within a geocentric arrangement of planets and stars (e.g. Joshua 10:12–13, Eccles. 1:5, Isaiah 40:22, 1 Chron. 16:30, Matthew 4:8, Rev. 7:1).



Joshua 10:12 On the day that the Lord gave up the Amorites to the Israelites, Joshua stood before all the people of Israel and said to the Lord: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon. Moon, stand still over the Valley of Aijalon.” 13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped until the people defeated their enemies.
Eccles. 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
1 Chron. 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Rev. 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.
[28] Modern astronomy has provided overwhelming evidence that this model is false. The spherical shape of the earth was established with certainty by Hellenistic astronomers in the 3rd century BCE. The heliocentric nature of the solar system was conclusively established in the 16th century CE. Many modern Christians and Jews assert that these passages are written as metaphorical or phenomenological descriptions and not meant to be taken literally.[29] This response is intuitive given the modern prevalence of the expression "the sun rises" despite that it is common knowledge in the English speaking world that the sun does not, in fact, rise.
Another common point of criticism regards the Genesis creation narrative. According to young Earth creationism, which takes a literal view of the book of Genesis, the universe and all forms of life on Earth were created directly by God sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. (The Bible traces back to Adam's creation around 4000 BCE. There is debate over the 24 hour earth-days in which the earth was created as only on the fourth day were the sun, moon and stars created - without the sun a 24 hour earth-day is impossible. Genesis 1:16-19) This assertion is contradicted by radiocarbon dating of fossils, as well as modern understanding of genetics, evolution, and cosmology.[30] For instance, astrophysical evidence suggests that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.[31] Moreover, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans if all humans were descended from two individuals several thousand years ago.[32]

The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents.
— Bully for Brontosaurus by Stephen Jay Gould
Science-faith think tanks such as the Biologos foundation and Reasons to Believe have sought to reconcile these scientific challenges with the Christian faith.
The Bible and archaeology[edit]
Main articles: The Bible and history and Biblical archaeology
According to one of the world's leading biblical archaeologists, William G. Dever,

"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."[33] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological 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 "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology 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.[34]
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....[35] 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...[36]
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.[37][38]
Professor Finkelstein, who is known as "the father of biblical archaeology", 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.[39] Professor Yoni Mizrahi, an independent archaeologist who has worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed with Israel Finkelstein.[39]
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.”[40]
Unfulfilled prophecies[edit]
See also: Bible prophecy
The alleged fulfillment of biblical prophecies is a popular argument used as evidence by Christian apologists to support the claimed divine inspiration of the Bible. They see the fulfillment of prophecies as proof of God's direct involvement in the writing of the Bible.[41]
Messianic prophecies[edit]
See also: Jesus and messianic prophecy and Judaism's view of Jesus
According to Christian apologists, the alleged fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus proves the accuracy of the Bible. However, according to Jewish scholars, Christian claims that Jesus is the messiah of the Hebrew Bible are based on mistranslations[42][43][44] and Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah.
An example of this is Isaiah 7:14. Christians read Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic prediction of Jesus' birth from a virgin, while Jews read it as referring to the birth of Ahaz's son, Hezekiah.[45][46] They also point out that the word Almah, used in Isaiah 7:14, is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-almah hara, meaning "the almah is pregnant." Since the present tense is used, they maintain that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. This being the case, they claim the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.[46][47]
Prophecies after the event[edit]
Main articles: Postdiction and Vaticinium ex eventu
An example of an alleged after-the-fact prophecy is the Little Apocalypse recorded in the Olivet Discourse of the Gospel of Mark. It predicts the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Jewish Temple at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD. Most mainstream New Testament scholars concede this is an ex eventu (foretelling after the event), as are many of the prophecies in the Old Testament such as Daniel 11.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]
Another example is Isaiah's prophecy about Cyrus the Great. Traditionally, the entire book of Isaiah is believed to pre-date the rule of Cyrus by about 120 years. These particular passages (Isaiah 40-55, often referred to as Deutero-Isaiah) are believed by most modern critical scholars to have been added by another author toward the end of the Babylonian exile (ca. 536 BC).[55] Whereas Isaiah 1-39 (referred to as Proto-Isaiah) saw the destruction of Israel as imminent, and the restoration in the future, Deutero-Isaiah speaks of the destruction in the past (Isa 42:24-25), and the restoration as imminent (Isiah 42:1-9). Notice, for example, the change in temporal perspective from (Isiah 39:6-7), where the Babylonian Captivity is cast far in the future, to (Isaiah 43:14), where the Israelites are spoken of as already in Babylon.[56]
The success of Joshua[edit]
The Book of Joshua describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, the son of one of the aides to Moses. After Moses' death, God tells Joshua to conquer Canaan and makes predictions of his success.[57] Amongst other things, Joshua was to be given a vast dominion that included all of the Hittite land, and the advantage of facing no one who could stand up to him.
While the Book of Joshua delineates many successful conquerings, the Canaanites were not amongst those conquered and the Israelites did suffer defeat. Judah, a leader of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, is unable to dislodge the Jebusites from Jerusalem and was forced to cohabit,[58] while the Manassites, another of the twelve tribes, lack the strength to occupy several Canaan towns.[59] Other bastions of resistance dot the landscape.[60][61] Even after Joshua's death, the land is only partially conquered with the Canaanites remaining a significant external threat.[62][63][64] Critics argue that Joshua never lives to see the full territory God promises him and that the substantial resistance put up by the indigenous population violates God's promise of battles in which no enemy was his equal.
The destruction of Tyre[edit]



Tyre harbourEzekiel predicts that the ancient city of Tyre will be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and "made a bare rock" that will "never be rebuilt" (Ezekiel 26:1, 26:7-14). However, Tyre withstood Nebuchadrezzar's siege for 13 years, ending in a compromise in which the royal family was taken into exile but the city survived intact.
Apologists cite the text as saying that the prophecy states that "many nations" would accomplish the destruction of Tyre, and claim that this refers to later conquerors (Ezekiel 26:3), but skeptics[65][66] counter that this was a reference to the "many nations" of Nebuchadrezzar's multinational force (Nebuchadrezzar was described by Ezekiel as "king of kings", i.e., an overking, a ruler over many nations), and that subsequent conquerors didn't permanently destroy Tyre either (it is now the fourth-largest city in Lebanon). Ezekiel himself admitted later that Nebuchadnezzar could not defeat Tyre (Ezekiel 29:18).
Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (Ezekiel 29:10-14), and Nebuchadnezzar would be allowed to plunder it (Ezekiel 29:19-20) as compensation for his earlier failure to plunder Tyre (see above). However, the armies of Pharaoh Amasis II defeated the Babylonians. History records that this Pharaoh (also known as Ahmose II) went on to enjoy a long and prosperous reign; Herodotus writes that:

It is said that it was during the reign of Ahmose II that Egypt attained its highest level of prosperity both in respect of what the river gave the land and in respect of what the land yielded to men and that the number of inhabited cities at that time reached in total 20,000.[67]
The prophecy in chapter 29 dates in December 588—January 587. 20 years later, in the year 568, Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt.[68] F.F. Bruce writes still more exactly that the Babylonian king invaded Egypt already after the siege of Tyre 585—573 BC and replaced the Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) by Amasis:

The siege of Tyre was followed by operations against Egypt itself. Hophra was defeated, deposed and replaced by Amasis, an Egyptian general. But in 568 BC Amasis revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, who then invaded and occupied part of the Egyptian frontier lands.[69]
Flavius Josephus even writes in his Antiquities, citing the 4th century Greek writer Megasthenes that Nebuchadnezzar had control of all northern Africa unto present day Spain:

Megasthenes also, in his fourth book of his Accounts of India, makes mention of these things, and thereby endeavours to show that this king (Nebuchadnezzar) exceeded Hercules in fortitude, and in the greatness of his actions; for he saith that he conquered a great part of Libya and Iberia.[70]
On the other hand Nebuchadnezzar makes no mention of this campaign against Egypt in his inscriptions, at least that are currently known. It is too simple to argue with Herodotus, especially because his credibility was ever since contested.[71] The forty years are not to understand as an exact number. This figure became a significant period of chastisement to the Hebrews remembering the forty years in the desert after the exodus from Egypt.[72]
The protection of the King of Judah[edit]
Isaiah spoke of a prophecy God made to Ahaz, the King of Judah that he would not be harmed by his enemies (Isaiah 7:1-7), yet according to 2 Chronicles, the king of Aram and Israel did conquer Judah (2 Chronicles 28:1-6).
In Isaiah (Isaiah 7:9) the prophet says clearly that a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the prophecy is that Ahaz stands firm in his faith. F.F. Bruce claims that this means Ahaz should trust God and not seek military help in the Assyrians, which Ahaz did.[73]
The death of the king of Judah[edit]
In predicting Jerusalem's fall to Babylon, Jeremiah prophesied that Zedekiah, the king of Judah, would "die in peace" (Jeremiah 34:2-5). However, according to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 52:9-11), he was put in prison until the day of his death.
Apologists maintain that Zedekiah did not suffer the same terrible death as all the other nobles of Judah did when Nebuchadnezzar killed them in Riblah. Jeremiah also told Zedekiah in his prophecy that he would have to go to Babylon, which the Apologists claim implies that he will be imprisoned. There are no historical records of what happened with Zedekiah in Babylon[74] and a peaceful death is not ruled out.[citation needed]
The death of Josiah[edit]
Prophetess Huldah prophesied that Josiah would die in peace (2 Kings 22:18-20), but rather than dying in peace, as the prophetess predicted, Josiah was probably killed at Megiddo in a battle with the Egyptian army (2 Chronicles 35:20-24).[75]
Apologists allege that the prophecy of Huldah was partially fulfilled because Josiah did not see all the disaster the Babylonians brought over Jerusalem and Judah. The prophetess clearly stated that because of Josiah's repentance, he will be buried in peace. But the king did not keep his humble attitude. As mentioned in 2 Chronicles (2 Chronicles 35:22), he did not listen to God's command and fought against the Egyptian pharaoh Necho. It is quite possible that he did this "opposing the faithful prophetic party".[76] Prophecy in the biblical sense is except in some very few cases never a foretelling of future events but it wants to induce the hearers to repent, to admonish and to encourage respectively; biblical prophecy includes almost always a conditional element.[77]



 Map showing the borders of the Promised Land, based on God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:18-21: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
The land promised to Abraham[edit]
Main article: Promised Land
According to Genesis and Deuteronomy (Genesis 15:18, 17:8 and Deuteronomy 1:7-8), Abraham and his descendants, the Israelites will unconditionally (Deuteronomy 9:3-7) own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River for an everlasting possession. But a critic says it never happened, that they never owned all that land forever.[78]
An apologist's counter-claim would be that a reading of Davidic conquests tells of the Israelite occupation of all the promised lands. F.F. Bruce writes:

David's sphere of influence now extended from the Egyptian frontier on the Wadi el-Arish (the "brook of Egypt") to the Euphrates; and these limits remained the ideal boundaries of Israel's dominion long after David's empire had disappeared.[79]
Acts 7:5 and Hebrews 11:13 are taken out of context if used as evidence against the fulfillment of these prophecies. Stephen does not state in Acts that the prophecy was not fulfilled. Moreover, it does not seem any problem for him to mention side by side the promise to Abraham himself and that Abraham did not get even a foot of ground. This becomes understandable with the concept of corporate personality. Jews are familiar with identifying individuals with the group they belong to. H. Wheeler Robinson writes that

Corporate personality is the important Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual and the group—family, tribe, or nation—to which he belongs, so that the king or some other representative figure may be said to embody the group, or the group may be said to sum up the host of individuals.[80]
The letter to the Hebrews speaks about the promise of the heavenly country (Hebrews 11:13-16).
The fate of Damascus[edit]
According to Isaiah 17:1, "Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins", but in fact Damascus is considered among the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world.
An apologist's response to this statement is that this verse refers to the destruction of Damascus as a strong capital of Syria. This was fulfilled during the Syro-Ephraimite War.

The prophecy perhaps dates from about 735 BC, when Damascus and Israel were allied against Judah (Isaiah 7:1). Damascus was taken by Tiglath-Pileser in 732, and Samaria by Sargon in 721.[81]
The passage is consistent with 2 Kings 16:9, which states that Assyria defeated the city and exiled the civilians to Kir.
The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt[edit]
According to Jeremiah 42:17, Jews who choose to live in Egypt will all die and leave no remnant. But history shows that Jews continued to live there for centuries, later establishing a cultural center at Alexandria. A Jewish community exists at Alexandria even to this day.[82]
According to apologists, a more thorough examination of the surrounding text suggests that Jeremiah is stating that no refugees who flee to Egypt would return to Israel except for few fugitives. Jeremiah 42-44 had relevance mainly to the group of exiles who fled to Egypt. It emphasizes that the future hopes of a restored Israel lay elsewhere than with the exiles to Egypt.[83]
The return of Jewish prisoners of war[edit]
Isaiah and Jeremiah (Isaiah 27:12-13, Jeremiah 3:18, Jeremiah 31:1-23, and Jeremiah 33:7) predicted the return of the exiles taken from Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BC. It never happened. Following the conquest of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 721 BC, the 10 tribes were gradually assimilated by other peoples and thus disappeared from history.[84] Unlike the Kingdom of Judah, which was able to return from its Babylonian Captivity in 537 BC, the 10 tribes of the Kingdom of Israel never had a foreign edict granting permission to return and rebuild their homeland. Assyria has long since vanished, its capital, Nineveh, destroyed in 612 BC.
Apologists, however, charge that Luke 2:36 states that Anna the Prophetess, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, was living as a widow in the sanctuary ministering to God with and fastings and petitions night and day. Thus, at least some (tiny) portion of Israel returned, since it was unlikely that a lone female would return to the land of Israel unaccompanied by kinsmen as safe escort.
Although the exiled Israelites from the Northern kingdom did not return from Assyria, apologists state that it must be considered that these passages also contain the expectation of the messianic days. Theologians point out that in Isaiah 27:12-13 Euphrates and the Wadi of Egypt represent the northern and southern borders of the Promised Land in its widest extent (Genesis 15:18) and thus they refer these verses to the return of the Israelites to Jerusalem in the last days, in the messianic time. Israelites will be gathered from wherever they have been expelled from the north, Assyria, to the south, Egypt.[85] Jeremiah's prophecy of Israel's and Judah's return from the north in Jeremiah 3:18 is preceded by the request of Yahweh to the Israelites to come back (verse 14). After fulfilling this condition God will increase their number and none will miss the ark of the covenant (verse 16). All nations will then honour the Lord (verse 17). Consequently Christian scholars refer verse 18 to messianic times when there will be a kingdom united as in the days of David and Solomon.[86] Jeremiah 31 should be seen in context with chapter 30. Some scholars argue that these chapters were written early in Jeremiah's ministry and refer to Northern Israel. Later these poems were updated and referred to Judah as well, probably by Jeremiah himself, when it was realized that Judah had passed through similar experiences to those of Israel.[87] The Book of Consolation (Jeremiah 30:1—31:40) reaches his final, messianic scope in the establishment of a New Covenant between Yahweh and the House of Israel and the House of Judah.[88]
The strength of Judah[edit]
Isaiah 19:17 predicted that "the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt". Assuming that the 'terror' implied was a large-scale military attack of Egypt, it never happened.
According to theologians, the statement that the "land of Judah" will terrify the Egyptians is not a reference to a large army from Judah attacking Egypt, but a circumlocution for the place where God lives; it is God and his plans that will terrify Egypt. Verse 17 has to be understood in its context. The second "in that day" message from verse 18 announces the beginning of a deeper relationship between God and Egypt, which leads to Egypt's conversion and worshiping God (verses 19-21). The last "in that day" prophecy (verses 23-25) speaks about Israel, Assyria and Egypt as God's special people, thus, describing eschatological events.[89][90]
The identity of the conquerors of Babylon[edit]
Isaiah 13:17, Isaiah 21:2, Jeremiah 51:11, and Jeremiah 51:27-28 predicted that Babylon would be destroyed by the Medes, Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz and Elamites. The Persians under Cyrus the Great captured Babylon in 539 BC. Daniel 5:31 incorrectly stated that it was Darius the Mede who captured Babylon.
Christian apologists state that the prophecy in Isaiah 13:21 could possibly have been directed originally against Assyria, whose capital Ninive was defeated 612 BC by a combined onslaught of the Medes and Babylonians. According to this explanation the prophecy was later updated and referred to Babylon[91] not recognizing the rising power of Persia. On the other hand it can be mentioned that the Persian king Cyrus after overthrowing Media in 550 BC did not treat the Medes as a subject nation.

Instead of treating the Medes as a beaten foe and a subject nation, he had himself installed as king of Media and governed Media and Persia as a dual monarchy, each part of which enjoyed equal rights.[92]
Jeremiah prophesied at the height of the Median empire's power, and thus he was probably influenced to see the Medes as the nation that will conquer Babylon. Several proposals were brought forth for "Darius the Mede" out of which one says that Cyrus the Great is meant in Daniel 5:31.
Jehoiakim prophecies[edit]
The prophet Daniel states that in the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah (Daniel 1:1-2). The third year of Jehoiakim's reign was 605 BC, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was in 597 BC that Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, by then Jehoiakim had died.
Apologists respond that this is not a prophecy but a statement. Daniel 1:1 is a problem of dating. But already F.F. Bruce solved this problem explaining that when Nebuchadnezzar, son of king Nabopolassar, was put in charge over a part of his forces, he defeated Necho in the battle of Carchemish 605 BC. In this situation his father Nabopolassar died. Before Nebuchadnezzar as heir apparent returned to Babylon he settled the affairs in the Asiatic countries bordering the Egyptian frontier, which means also Judah, and took captives from several countries as, for example, also from the Jews.[93]
Jeremiah prophesied that the body of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, would be desecrated after his death (Jeremiah 22:18-19, Jeremiah 36:30-31). However, his death was recorded in 2 Kings 24:6 where it says that "Jehoiakim slept with his fathers". This is a familiar Bible expression that was used to denote a peaceful death and respectful burial. David slept with his fathers (1 Kings 2:10) and so did Solomon (1 Kings 11:43). On the other hand, 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 states that Nebuchadnezzar came against Jehoiakim, bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon. Judging from the treatment Zedekiah was accorded when the Babylonians bound him and carried him away to Babylon (Jeremiah 52:9-11), one might justifiably argue that his body probably was desecrated after his death. Jeremiah, however, predicted that Jehoiakim's own people would be his desecraters, that his own people would not accord him lamentations appropriate for a king, that his own people would cast his body "out beyond the gates of Jerusalem".
Apologists proposal for a partial solution:

In the 7th year of his reign, in the month of Kislev (December/January 598/97), Nebuchadnezzar himself left Babylon and undertook the subjection of rebellious Judah. In that same month, King Jehoiakim died in Jerusalem. (On the basis of a comparison with 2 Kings 24:6,8,10ff, with the Babylonian Chronicle, Wiseman 73, lines 11-13, Kislev is the ninth month. In the twelfth month, Adar, Jerusalem was taken. Jehoiachin's reign falls in these three months.) It is not impossible that he was murdered by a political faction who thereby sought more mild treatment for their country. His 18-year old son Jehoiachin was raised to the throne (2 Kings 24:8). Three months later Jerusalem was entirely surrounded by Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city of Judah (al-ya-ahu-du), and on the second day of the month of Adar he comquered the city and took its king prisoner.[94]
Also F.F. Bruce writes that Jehoiakim died in Juda before the siege of Jerusalem began.[95] This would mean that Jehoiakim was desecrated after his death and in this way the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled. The passage in 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 does not speak explicitly about Jehoiakim's death. Thus, it can be seen as a parallel to Daniel 1:1-2[96] which speaks about an event in the lifetime of the king of Judah (see paragraph above). 2 Kings 24:6, nevertheless, remains unclear.
Part of the desecration prophecy was that Jehoiakim would "have no one to sit upon the throne of David" (Jeremiah 36:30), but this too was proven false. Upon Jehoiakim's death, his son Jehoiachin "reigned in his stead" for a period of three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:8-9, 2 Kings 24:6-8). Also, there are biblical genealogies that purport to show Jehoiakim as a direct ancestor of Jesus (1 Chronicles 3:16-17, Matthew 1:11-12).[75]
Apologists say that if Jehoiakim had not been killed by his own people, on the condition that this supposition is true (see preceding paragraph), in all likelihood, Jehoiakim would have been put to death by the Babylonians. The Israelites anticipated what Nebuchadnezzar intended to do. In this case, most probable, Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin would not have become king and Jeremiah's prophecy would have been fulfilled in its full sense. Jehoiachin's successor, Zedekiah, was no descendant of Jehoiakim, but his brother.
The double reckoning of Jehoiachin in Matthew 1:11-12 is made possible by the fact that the same Greek name can translate the two similar Hebrew names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin.[97] In this way in verse 11 Jehoiakim and in verse 12 Jehoiachin is meant. The verse Jeremiah 36:30 says that Jehoiakim's descendants will not be kings in Judah anymore. This does not mean that he cannot be an ancestor of the Messiah.
New Testament[edit]



 The Wailing Wall by night. According to Luke 19:41-44: As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you.
Jesus said in Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44; Luke 21:6 that "no stone" of Jerusalem or of the Second Temple would be left upon another. This prophecy failed, as the wailing wall (a remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Jewish Temple's courtyard,) still remains.
In reply, John Robinson writes that

it was the temple that perished by fire while the walls of the city were thrown down.[98]
The imminence of the second coming[edit]
See also: Second coming
Jesus prophesied that the second coming would occur during the lifetime of his followers and Caiphas, and immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (referred to as abomination of desolation in Matt 24:15).

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28)

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23)

..Again the high priest (Caiphas) asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?""I am", said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62)

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us", they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now-and never to be equaled again. Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24)

(see also Mark 13:1-30, Luke 21:5-35, Mark 13:30-31, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, John 21:22, Matthew 26:62-64, Mark 14:62)
It may be argued that Jesus was not speaking of the second coming in Matthew 16:28 but instead referred to a demonstration of his or God's might; a viewpoint which allows the fulfillment of the prophesy through a variety of traumatic events, notably, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD. The temple's destruction is held by proponents to demonstrate that God was on the side of the Christian people rather than that of the Jews. However, at that time only some of Jesus' disciples still lived.[99] In the same way Matthew 10:23 should be understood.[100] Note, however, that this view (referred to as Preterism) is not the majority view among American denominations, especially by denominations that espouse Dispensationalism.[101][102][103] Furthermore it is a misunderstanding that Jesus meant Caiphas in Mark 14:62. The word "you will see" is in Greek "ὄψεσθε" [opsesthe, from the infinitive optomai],[104] which is plural and not singular. Jesus meant that the Jews, and not just the high priest, will see his coming.
This prophecy is also seen in the Revelation of Jesus to John.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,... Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. (Revelation 1:1,7)

"Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book. ... Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done." ... He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:7,12,20)

Despite the strongly repeated promises to the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 1:4,11) in the 1st century CE, Jesus has not come quickly or shortly according to critics.
Apologists respond that the word "soon" (other translations use "shortly" or "quickly") does not have to be understood in the sense of close future. The Norwegian scholar Thorleif Boman explained that the Israelites, unlike Europeans or people in the West, did not understand time as something measurable or calculable according to Hebrew thinking but as something qualitative.

We have examined the ideas underlying the expression of calculable time and more than once have found that the Israelites understood time as something qualitative, because for them time is determined by its content.[105]

...the Semitic concept of time is closely coincident with that of its content without which time would be quite impossible. The quantity of duration completely recedes behind the characteristic feature that enters with time or advances in it. Johannes Pedersen comes to the same conclusion when he distinguishes sharply between the Semitic understanding of time and ours. According to him, time is for us an abstraction since we distinguish time from the events that occur in time. The ancient Semites did not do this; for them time is determined by its content.[106]
In this way expressions of time, such as "soon", do not mean that the denoted event will take place in close future but that it will be the next significant event.[107]
The Apostle Paul also predicted that the second coming would be within his own lifetime, 1 Thessalonians 4:17:

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
[108]

The philosopher Porphyry (232-305 CE), in his Kata Christianon (Against the Christians), a book burned and banned by the church in 448 CE writes of Paul:

Another of his astonishingly silly comments needs to be examined: I mean that wise saying of his, to the effect that, We who are alive and persevere shall not precede those who are asleep when the lord comes—for the lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout... and the trumpet of god shall sound, and those who have died in Christ shall rise first- then we who are alive shall be caught up together with them in a cloud to meet the lord in the air... Indeed—there is something here that reaches up to heaven: the magnitude of this lie. When told to dumb bears, to silly frogs and geese—they bellow or croak or quack with delight to hear of the bodies of men flying through the air like birds or being carried about on the clouds. This belief is quackery of the first rate.
The apologists answer for the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is that Paul speaks about his own presence at the last day only hypothetically. He identifies himself with those Christians who will still live in the time of Jesus' return but does not want to express that he himself will still experience this.[109] That becomes fully clear some verses later in which he says that the Day of the Lord comes like a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2). The comparison of the Day of the Lord with a thief is a word of Jesus himself (Matthew 24:43-44), which expresses the impossibility to say anything about the date of his second coming (Matthew 24:36).
Notable critics[edit]
Isaac Asimov
Richard Dawkins
Albert Einstein [110]
Christopher Hitchens
Robert G. Ingersoll[111]
Thomas Paine
Bertrand Russell
Mark Twain
Voltaire
See also[edit]
Bible conspiracy theory
Criticism of the Book of Mormon
Criticism of the Talmud
Criticism of the Qur'an
Christ myth theory
Misquoting Jesus
Tahrif
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b "Bible." The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia. West Chiltington: Crystal Reference, 2005. Credo Reference. 29 July 2009
2.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2003). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford. pp. 122–123, 185. ISBN 0-19-514183-0.
3.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. pp. 372–3. ISBN 0-19-515462-2. Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 621, 639, 654. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. Scholars who hold to Pauline authorship include Wohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thornell, Schlatter, Spicq, Jeremais, Simpson, Kelly, and Fee. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 622.
4.Jump up ^ Examples of authors who argue the Jesus myth hypothesis: 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
5.Jump up ^ Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter (1999) The Jesus Mysteries. London: Thorsons (Harper Collins)
6.Jump up ^ "Bible." The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Credo Reference. 29 July 2009
7.Jump up ^ The Bible in the Syriac tradition, Sebastian P. Brock, p. 13
8.Jump up ^ God's conflict with the dragon and the sea: echoes of a Canaanite myth, John Day
9.Jump up ^ Understanding Biblical Israel: a reexamination of the origins of monotheism, Stanley Ned Rosenbaum
10.Jump up ^ The Jewish religion: a companion By Louis Jacobs, p. 251
11.Jump up ^ Exod. 20:14, 1631 edition of the King James Version of the Bible.
12.Jump up ^ Eric Pement, Gimme the Bible that Paul used: A look at the King James Only debate online.
13.Jump up ^ Genesis 19:30-36
14.Jump up ^ "How Can We Trust a Bible that Tolerated Slavery?" Discovery Series, RBC Ministries. July 27, 2009.
15.Jump up ^ [1][dead link]
16.Jump up ^ Schulweis, Harold M. (2009). Conscience: The Duty to Obey and the Duty to Disobey. Woodstock, Vermont: Jewish Lights. pp. 28–30. ISBN 1-58023-419-4.
17.Jump up ^ Saugstad, Andreas. "Nietzsche & Christianity" July 28, 2009.
18.Jump up ^ "Contradictions from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible". Skepticsannotatedbible.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
19.Jump up ^ Knight, George William, Howard Marshall, and W. Ward Gasque. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary). William. B. Eerdmans, 1997. ISBN 0-8028-2395-5 / 9780802823953
20.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1999-05-18). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library). Yale University Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-300-14008-8.
21.Jump up ^ W.D Davies and E. P. Sanders, 'Jesus from the Jewish point of view', in The Cambridge History of Judaism ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984.
22.Jump up ^ Sanders, Ed Parish (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane. p. 85. ISBN 0-7139-9059-7.
23.Jump up ^ Hurtado, Larry W. (June 2003). Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 319. ISBN 0-8028-6070-2.
24.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1977). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. pp. 104–121. ISBN 0-385-05907-8.
25.Jump up ^ The role and function of repentance in Luke-Acts, by Guy D. Nave, pg 194 – see http://books.google.com/books?id=4CGScYTomYsC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix%22&source=bl&ots=ex8JIDMwMD&sig=oCI_C1mXVSZYoz34sVlgRDaO__Q&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYnSjAefnOU2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix%22&f=false
26.Jump up ^ The Continuing Christian Need for Judaism, by John Shelby Spong, Christian Century September 26, 1979, p. 918. see http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1256
27.Jump up ^ Feminist companion to the New Testament and early Christian writings, Volume 5, by Amy-Jill Levine, Marianne Blickenstaff, pg175 – see http://books.google.com/books?id=B2lfhy5lvlkC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix%22&source=bl&ots=vp5GVlmghC&sig=XN1KJCsBkTWO2Fot4SBhnpWoRkY&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYnSjAefnOU2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix%22&f=false
28.Jump up ^ Driscoll, J.F. (1909). "Firmament". In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 26 May 2008 from New Advent. ("That the Hebrews entertained similar ideas appears from numerous biblical passages...").
29.Jump up ^ The Galileo Controversy at Catholic Answers
30.Jump up ^ http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
31.Jump up ^ "Cosmic Detectives". The European Space Agency (ESA). 2013-04-02. Retrieved 2013-04-15.
32.Jump up ^ Barbara Bradley Hagerty (August 9, 2011). "Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve". All Things Considered.
33.Jump up ^ Bible gets a reality check, MSNBC, Alan Boyle
34.Jump up ^ The Bible's Buried Secrets, PBS Nova, 2008
35.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (March–April 2006). "The Western Cultural Tradition Is at Risk". Biblical Archaeology Review 32 (2): 26 & 76.
36.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (January 2003). "Contra Davies". The Bible and Interpretation. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
37.Jump up ^ The Nature of Home: A Lexicon of Essays, Lisa Knopp, p. 126
38.Jump up ^ Deconstructing the walls of Jericho
39.^ Jump up to: a b http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/news/middle-east/2705-senior-israeli-archaeologist-casts-doubt-on-jewish-heritage-of-jerusalem
40.Jump up ^ Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say, The New York Times, April 3, 2007
41.Jump up ^ Nathan Busenitz, John MacArthur. Reasons We Believe. Crossway, 2008. ISBN 1-4335-0146-5 / 9781433501463. Aug. 6, 2009: [2]
42.Jump up ^ Why did the majority of the Jewish world reject Jesus as the Messiah, and why did the first Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah? by Rabbi Shraga Simmons (about.com)
43.Jump up ^ Michoel Drazin (1990). Their Hollow Inheritance. A Comprehensive Refutation of Christian Missionaries. Gefen Publishing House, Ltd. ISBN 965-229-070-X.
44.Jump up ^ Troki, Isaac. "Faith Strengthened".
45.Jump up ^ Glaser, Zhava. "Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden?" Issues—A Messianic Jewish Perspective. July 30, 2009.
46.^ Jump up to: a b "The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14". Messiahtruth.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
47.Jump up ^ Why do Jews reject the Christian dogma of the virgin birth? The Second Jewish Book Of Why p.66 by Alfred J. Kolatch 1985
48.Jump up ^ Peter, Kirby (2001–2007). "Early Christian Writings: Gospel of Mark". Retrieved 2008-01-15.
49.Jump up ^ Achtemeier, Paul J. (1992). "The Gospel of Mark". The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4. New York, New York: Doubleday. p. 545. ISBN 0-385-19362-9.
50.Jump up ^ Meier, John P. (1991). A Marginal Jew. New York, New York: Doubleday. pp. v.2 955–6. ISBN 0-385-46993-4.
51.Jump up ^ Helms, Randel (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels?. Altadena, California: Millennium Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-9655047-2-7.
52.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W.; Hoover, Roy W.; The Jesus Seminar (1993). The five Gospels: the search for the authentic words of Jesus: new translation and commentary. New York, New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-541949-8.
53.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic (1991). The historical Jesus: the life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-061629-6.
54.Jump up ^ Eisenman, Robert J. (1998). James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Penguin Books. p. 56. ISBN 0-14-025773-X.
55.Jump up ^ Simon John De Vries: From old Revelation to new: a tradition-historical and redaction-critical study of temporal transitions in prophetic prediction. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 1995, ISBN 978-0-8028-0683-3, p. 126
56.Jump up ^ Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard: Mercer dictionary of the Bible. Mercer University Press 1990, ISBN 978-0-86554-373-7, p. 414
57.Jump up ^ Joshua 1:1-9
58.Jump up ^ Joshua 15:63
59.Jump up ^ Joshua 17:12-13
60.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 19.
61.Jump up ^ Judges 3:5-6
62.Jump up ^ Biblical peoples and ethnicity: an archaeological study of Egyptians, Ann E. Killebrew, pp. 152-154, 2005
63.Jump up ^ International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, p. 1136
64.Jump up ^ The Old Testament world, By John Rogerson, Philip R. Davies, 1989, p. 358
65.Jump up ^ "The Tyre Prophecy Again". The Skeptical Review. March–April 1999. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
66.Jump up ^ "Ezekiel and the Oracles against Tyre". CRI/Voice Institute. 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
67.Jump up ^ Herodotus, (II, 177, 1)
68.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Ezekiel 29:1,19.
69.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 94.
70.Jump up ^ "Flavius Josephus, Antiquities Book X, chapter 11, first paragraph". Ccel.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
71.Jump up ^ John Marincola, Classical Association, Greek historians, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pages 37-39. Books.google.com. ISBN 978-0-19-922501-9. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
72.Jump up ^ Frederic Charles Cook, ed. (2006-10-04). "Bible Commentary: Proverbs-Ezekiel—footnote to Ezekiel 29:10-12". Ccel.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
73.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 62-67
74.Jump up ^ Siegfried Herrmann, A history of Israel in Old Testament times, London, 1981, SCM Press Ltd, page 284.
75.^ Jump up to: a b "Prophecies: Imaginary and fulfilled". Infidels.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
76.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 84.
77.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; page 1189—introduction to the book of Jonah.
78.Jump up ^ "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise, Farrell Till". Theskepticalreview.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
79.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 32.
80.Jump up ^ Greidanus, Sidney (1999). Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-8028-4449-1. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
81.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Isaiah 17:1
82.Jump up ^ "The Argument from the Bible (1996)". Infidels.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
83.Jump up ^ John Arthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980, page 141.
84.Jump up ^ "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel". Britannica Online. Britannica.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
85.Jump up ^ Herbert M. Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah, published by Zondervan, 1985, page 146
86.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Jeremiah 3:18
87.Jump up ^ John Arthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980, page 552
88.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Jeremiah 30
89.Jump up ^ Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1-39, B&H Publishing Group, 2007, pages 360-363
90.Jump up ^ John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1986, pages 375-381
91.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Isaiah 21:1.
92.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 96.
93.Jump up ^ Daniel's First Verse by F.F.Bruce
94.Jump up ^ Claus Schedl, History of the Old Testament, Volume IV, Translation of 'Geschichte des Alten Testaments', Society of St.Paul, Staten Island, New York 10314, 1972, pages 349-350
95.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 88.
96.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to 2 Chronicles 36:6
97.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Matthew 11:1.
98.Jump up ^ John A.T., Robinson, Redating the New Testament, London, 1976, page 20
99.Jump up ^ Dr. Knox Chamblin, Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary: Commentary on Matthew 16:21-28—see last 4 paragraphs
100.Jump up ^ Theodor Zahn, F.F. Bruce, J. Barton Payne, etc. hold this opinion is the meaning of Matthew 10:23?
101.Jump up ^ Riemer, Michael (2000). IT Was At Hand. p. 12.
102.Jump up ^ Garland, Anthony (2007). A Testimony of Jesus Christ—Volume 1. p. 114.
103.Jump up ^ Sproul, RC (1998). The Last Days According to Jesus. p. 156.
104.Jump up ^ Online Interlinear New Testament in Greek—Matthew 26
105.Jump up ^ Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with Greek, W.W.Norton & Company, New York—London, 1970, page 137
106.Jump up ^ Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with Greek, W.W.Norton & Company, New York—London, 1970, page 139
107.Jump up ^ Witherington, III, The Paul Quest, InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 140
108.Jump up ^ See also 1Cor7:29-31, 15:51-54 andRomans 13:12
109.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to 1 Thessalonians 4:15: "Paul includes himself among those who will be present at the parousia: more by aspiration, however, than by conviction."
110.Jump up ^ Einstein: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
111.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.
Further reading[edit]
The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, by C. Dennis McKinsey (Prometheus Books 1995)
The Historical Evidence for Jesus, by G.A. Wells (Prometheus Books 1988)
The Bible unearthed, by I. Finkelstein and N. Asherman (Touchstone 2001)
David and Solomon, by I. Finkelstein and N. Asherman (Freepress 2006)
The Jesus Mysteries, by T. Freke and P. Gandy (Element 1999)
The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty (Age of Reason Publications 1999)
Not the Impossible Faith, by R. Carrier (Lulu 2009)
BC The archaeology of the Bible lands, by Magnus Magnusson (Bodley Head 1977)
godless, by Dan Barker (Ulysses Press 2008)
Why I became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus (Prometheus books 2008)
The greatest show on earth, by Richard Dawkins (Blackswan 2007)
The god delusion, by Richard Dawkins (Blackswan 2010)
101 myths of the Bible by Gary Greenberg (Sourcebooks 2000)
Secret origins of the Bible by Tim Callahan (Millennium Press 2002)
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark S. Smith (Oxford University Press 2001)
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Criticism of the Bible
Bible Research —The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy
Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems, Internet Infidels website
Examination of the Prophecies —Examination of the Old Testament Prophecies of Jesus by Thomas Paine



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion

























































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history















Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


































  



Categories: Criticism of the Bible
Criticism of Judaism















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
Deutsch
فارسی
עברית
Magyar
日本語
Português
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last modified on 16 June 2015, at 03:31.
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_the_Bible















Criticism of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about criticisms of the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance. For the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document, see Biblical criticism.

Crystal Clear app kedit.svg
 This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions. (February 2014)
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[hide]

Gnostic ·
 Islamic ·
 Qur'anic

Inerrancy ·
 Infallibility
 Criticism of the Bible

Wikipedia book Bible book    Portal icon Bible portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
The view that the Bible should be accepted as historically accurate and as a reliable guide to morality has been questioned by many scholars in the field of biblical criticism. In addition to concerns about morality, inerrancy, or historicity, there remain some questions of which books should be included in the Bible (see canon of scripture). Jews discount the New Testament and Old Testament Deuterocanonicals, Jews and most Christians discredit the legitimacy of New Testament apocrypha, and a view sometimes referred to as Jesusism does not affirm the scriptural authority of any biblical text other than the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.



Contents  [hide]
1 Bible history issues
2 Translation issues
3 Ethics in the Bible
4 Internal consistency
5 The Bible and science
6 The Bible and archaeology
7 Unfulfilled prophecies 7.1 Messianic prophecies
7.2 Prophecies after the event
7.3 The success of Joshua
7.4 The destruction of Tyre
7.5 The protection of the King of Judah
7.6 The death of the king of Judah
7.7 The death of Josiah
7.8 The land promised to Abraham
7.9 The fate of Damascus
7.10 The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt
7.11 The return of Jewish prisoners of war
7.12 The strength of Judah
7.13 The identity of the conquerors of Babylon
7.14 Jehoiakim prophecies
7.15 New Testament 7.15.1 The imminence of the second coming

8 Notable critics
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links

Bible history issues[edit]



 The Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible
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
   
Main articles: Biblical Criticism and Higher Criticism
The Hebrew Bible and Christian Bibles are works considered sacred and authoritative writings by their respective faith groups that revere their specific collections of biblical writings.[1] The Hebrew Bible, upon which the Christian Old Testament is based, was originally composed in Biblical Hebrew, except for parts of Daniel and Ezra that were written in Biblical Aramaic. These writings depict Israelite religion from its beginnings to about the 2nd century BC. The Christian New Testament was written in Koine Greek. (See Language of the New Testament for details.)
At the end of the 17th century few Bible scholars would have doubted that Moses wrote the Torah, but in the late 18th century some liberal scholars began to question his authorship, and by the end of the 19th century some went as far as to claim that as a whole the work was of many more authors over many centuries from 1000 BC (the time of David) to 500 BC (the time of Ezra), and that the history it contained was often more polemical rather than strictly factual. By the first half of the 20th century Hermann Gunkel had drawn attention to mythic aspects, 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.

While the limits of the canon were effectively set in these early centuries, the status of scripture has been a topic of scholarly discussion in the later church. Increasingly, the biblical works have been subjected to literary and historical criticism in efforts to interpret the texts independent of Church and dogmatic influences. Different views of the authority and inspiration of the Bible also continue to be expressed in liberal and fundamentalist churches today. What cannot be denied, however, is the enormous influence which the stories, poetry, and reflections found in the biblical writings have had, not only on the doctrines and practices of two major faiths, but also on Western culture, its literature, art, and music.[1]
In the 2nd century, the gnostics often claimed that their form of Christianity was the first, and they regarded Jesus as a teacher, or allegory.[2] Elaine Pagels has proposed that there are several examples of gnostic attitudes in the Pauline Epistles.[citation needed] Bart D. Ehrman and Raymond E. Brown note that some of the Pauline epistles are widely regarded by scholars as pseudonymous,[3] and it is the view of Timothy Freke, and others, that this involved a forgery in an attempt by the Church to bring in Paul's Gnostic supporters and turn the arguments in the other Epistles on their head.
Some critics have alleged that Christianity is not founded on a historical figure, but rather on a mythical creation.[4] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of a pan-Hellenic cult, known as Osiris-Dionysus,[5] which acknowledged the non-historic nature of the figure, using it instead as a teaching device.
Translation issues[edit]
Main articles: Biblical manuscripts, Textual criticism and Biblical inerrancy
Some critics express concern that none of the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible still exist. All translations of the Bible have been made from well-respected but centuries-old copies. Religious communities value highly those who interpret their scriptures at both the scholarly and popular levels. Translation of scripture into the vernacular (such as English and hundreds of other languages), though a common phenomenon, is also a subject of debate and criticism.[6]
Translation has led to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar and word meaning. While the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that "inerrancy" applies only to the original languages, some believers trust their own translation as the truly accurate one—for example, 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 many of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over correct interpretation occur. For instance, at creation(Gen 1:2), is רוח אלהים (ruwach 'elohiym) the "wind of god", "spirit of god"(i.e., the Holy Spirit in Christianity), or a "mighty wind" over the primordial deep? In Hebrew, רוח(ruwach) can mean "wind","breath" or "spirit". Both ancient and modern translators are divided over this and many other such ambiguities.[7][8][9][10] Another example is the word used in the Masoretic Text [Isa 7:14] to indicate the woman who would bear Immanuel is alleged to mean a young, unmarried woman in Hebrew, while Matthew 1:23 follows the Septuagint version of the passage that uses the Greek word parthenos, translated virgin, and is used to support the Christian idea of virgin birth. Those who view the masoretic text, which forms the basis of most English translations of the Old Testament, as being more accurate than the Septuagint, and trust its usual translation, may see this as an inconsistency, whereas those who take the Septuagint to be accurate may not.
In the History of the English Bible, there have been many changes to the wording, leading to several competing versions. Many of these have contained Biblical errata—typographic errors, such as the phrases Is there no treacle in Gilead?, Printers have persecuted me without cause, and Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?, and even Thou shalt commit adultery.[11]
More recently, several discoveries of ancient manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls, and Codex Sinaiticus, have led to modern translations like the New International Version differing somewhat from the older ones such as the 17th century King James Version, removing verses not present in the earliest manuscripts (see List of omitted Bible verses), some of which are acknowledged as interpolations, such as the Comma Johanneum, others having several highly variant versions in very important places, such as the resurrection scene in Mark 16. The King-James-Only Movement rejects these changes and uphold the King James Version as the most accurate.[12]
Ethics in the Bible[edit]
Main article: Ethics in the Bible
Certain moral decisions in the Bible are questioned by many modern groups. Some of the most commonly criticized ethical choices include subjugation of women, religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest,[13] toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments,[14] obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites. Christian Apologists support the Bible's decisions by reminding critics that they should be considered from the author's point of view and that Mosaic Law applied to the Israelite people (who lived before the birth of Jesus). Other religious groups see nothing wrong with the Bible's judgments.[15] One example that is often cited is the biblical law of the rebellious son:[16]

"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear." (Deut. 21:18-21)
Other critics of the Bible, such as Friedrich Nietzsche who popularized the phrase "God is dead",[17] have questioned the morality of the New Testament, regarding it as weak and conformist-oriented.
Internal consistency[edit]
Main article: Internal consistency of the Bible
There are many places in the Bible in which inconsistencies—such as different numbers and names for the same feature, and different sequences for the same events—have been alleged and presented by critics as difficulties.[18] Responses to these criticisms include the modern documentary hypothesis, the two-source hypothesis and theories that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous.[19]:p.47 Contrasting with these critical stances are positions supported by other authorities that consider the texts to be consistent. Such advocates maintain that the Torah was written by a single source, the Gospels by four independent witnesses, and all of the Pauline Epistles to have been written by the Apostle Paul.[citation needed]
However authors such as Raymond Brown have presented arguments that the Gospels actually contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details.[20] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders state that: "on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could".[21] More critical scholars see the nativity stories either as completely fictional accounts,[22] or at least constructed from traditions that predate the Gospels.[23][24]
For example, many versions of the Bible specifically point out that the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses did not include Mark 16:9-20, i.e., the Gospel of Mark originally ended at Mark 16:8, and additional verses were added a few hundred years later. This is known as the "Markan Appendix".[25][26][27]
Mosaic authorship, authorship of the Gospels and authorship of the Pauline Epistles are topics that remain widely debated.
The Bible and science[edit]
Main article: Science and the Bible
The universe, as presented literally in the Bible, consists of a flat earth within a geocentric arrangement of planets and stars (e.g. Joshua 10:12–13, Eccles. 1:5, Isaiah 40:22, 1 Chron. 16:30, Matthew 4:8, Rev. 7:1).



Joshua 10:12 On the day that the Lord gave up the Amorites to the Israelites, Joshua stood before all the people of Israel and said to the Lord: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon. Moon, stand still over the Valley of Aijalon.” 13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped until the people defeated their enemies.
Eccles. 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
1 Chron. 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Rev. 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.
[28] Modern astronomy has provided overwhelming evidence that this model is false. The spherical shape of the earth was established with certainty by Hellenistic astronomers in the 3rd century BCE. The heliocentric nature of the solar system was conclusively established in the 16th century CE. Many modern Christians and Jews assert that these passages are written as metaphorical or phenomenological descriptions and not meant to be taken literally.[29] This response is intuitive given the modern prevalence of the expression "the sun rises" despite that it is common knowledge in the English speaking world that the sun does not, in fact, rise.
Another common point of criticism regards the Genesis creation narrative. According to young Earth creationism, which takes a literal view of the book of Genesis, the universe and all forms of life on Earth were created directly by God sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. (The Bible traces back to Adam's creation around 4000 BCE. There is debate over the 24 hour earth-days in which the earth was created as only on the fourth day were the sun, moon and stars created - without the sun a 24 hour earth-day is impossible. Genesis 1:16-19) This assertion is contradicted by radiocarbon dating of fossils, as well as modern understanding of genetics, evolution, and cosmology.[30] For instance, astrophysical evidence suggests that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.[31] Moreover, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans if all humans were descended from two individuals several thousand years ago.[32]

The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents.
— Bully for Brontosaurus by Stephen Jay Gould
Science-faith think tanks such as the Biologos foundation and Reasons to Believe have sought to reconcile these scientific challenges with the Christian faith.
The Bible and archaeology[edit]
Main articles: The Bible and history and Biblical archaeology
According to one of the world's leading biblical archaeologists, William G. Dever,

"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."[33] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological 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 "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology 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.[34]
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....[35] 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...[36]
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.[37][38]
Professor Finkelstein, who is known as "the father of biblical archaeology", 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.[39] Professor Yoni Mizrahi, an independent archaeologist who has worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed with Israel Finkelstein.[39]
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.”[40]
Unfulfilled prophecies[edit]
See also: Bible prophecy
The alleged fulfillment of biblical prophecies is a popular argument used as evidence by Christian apologists to support the claimed divine inspiration of the Bible. They see the fulfillment of prophecies as proof of God's direct involvement in the writing of the Bible.[41]
Messianic prophecies[edit]
See also: Jesus and messianic prophecy and Judaism's view of Jesus
According to Christian apologists, the alleged fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus proves the accuracy of the Bible. However, according to Jewish scholars, Christian claims that Jesus is the messiah of the Hebrew Bible are based on mistranslations[42][43][44] and Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah.
An example of this is Isaiah 7:14. Christians read Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic prediction of Jesus' birth from a virgin, while Jews read it as referring to the birth of Ahaz's son, Hezekiah.[45][46] They also point out that the word Almah, used in Isaiah 7:14, is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-almah hara, meaning "the almah is pregnant." Since the present tense is used, they maintain that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. This being the case, they claim the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.[46][47]
Prophecies after the event[edit]
Main articles: Postdiction and Vaticinium ex eventu
An example of an alleged after-the-fact prophecy is the Little Apocalypse recorded in the Olivet Discourse of the Gospel of Mark. It predicts the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Jewish Temple at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD. Most mainstream New Testament scholars concede this is an ex eventu (foretelling after the event), as are many of the prophecies in the Old Testament such as Daniel 11.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]
Another example is Isaiah's prophecy about Cyrus the Great. Traditionally, the entire book of Isaiah is believed to pre-date the rule of Cyrus by about 120 years. These particular passages (Isaiah 40-55, often referred to as Deutero-Isaiah) are believed by most modern critical scholars to have been added by another author toward the end of the Babylonian exile (ca. 536 BC).[55] Whereas Isaiah 1-39 (referred to as Proto-Isaiah) saw the destruction of Israel as imminent, and the restoration in the future, Deutero-Isaiah speaks of the destruction in the past (Isa 42:24-25), and the restoration as imminent (Isiah 42:1-9). Notice, for example, the change in temporal perspective from (Isiah 39:6-7), where the Babylonian Captivity is cast far in the future, to (Isaiah 43:14), where the Israelites are spoken of as already in Babylon.[56]
The success of Joshua[edit]
The Book of Joshua describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, the son of one of the aides to Moses. After Moses' death, God tells Joshua to conquer Canaan and makes predictions of his success.[57] Amongst other things, Joshua was to be given a vast dominion that included all of the Hittite land, and the advantage of facing no one who could stand up to him.
While the Book of Joshua delineates many successful conquerings, the Canaanites were not amongst those conquered and the Israelites did suffer defeat. Judah, a leader of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, is unable to dislodge the Jebusites from Jerusalem and was forced to cohabit,[58] while the Manassites, another of the twelve tribes, lack the strength to occupy several Canaan towns.[59] Other bastions of resistance dot the landscape.[60][61] Even after Joshua's death, the land is only partially conquered with the Canaanites remaining a significant external threat.[62][63][64] Critics argue that Joshua never lives to see the full territory God promises him and that the substantial resistance put up by the indigenous population violates God's promise of battles in which no enemy was his equal.
The destruction of Tyre[edit]



Tyre harbourEzekiel predicts that the ancient city of Tyre will be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and "made a bare rock" that will "never be rebuilt" (Ezekiel 26:1, 26:7-14). However, Tyre withstood Nebuchadrezzar's siege for 13 years, ending in a compromise in which the royal family was taken into exile but the city survived intact.
Apologists cite the text as saying that the prophecy states that "many nations" would accomplish the destruction of Tyre, and claim that this refers to later conquerors (Ezekiel 26:3), but skeptics[65][66] counter that this was a reference to the "many nations" of Nebuchadrezzar's multinational force (Nebuchadrezzar was described by Ezekiel as "king of kings", i.e., an overking, a ruler over many nations), and that subsequent conquerors didn't permanently destroy Tyre either (it is now the fourth-largest city in Lebanon). Ezekiel himself admitted later that Nebuchadnezzar could not defeat Tyre (Ezekiel 29:18).
Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (Ezekiel 29:10-14), and Nebuchadnezzar would be allowed to plunder it (Ezekiel 29:19-20) as compensation for his earlier failure to plunder Tyre (see above). However, the armies of Pharaoh Amasis II defeated the Babylonians. History records that this Pharaoh (also known as Ahmose II) went on to enjoy a long and prosperous reign; Herodotus writes that:

It is said that it was during the reign of Ahmose II that Egypt attained its highest level of prosperity both in respect of what the river gave the land and in respect of what the land yielded to men and that the number of inhabited cities at that time reached in total 20,000.[67]
The prophecy in chapter 29 dates in December 588—January 587. 20 years later, in the year 568, Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt.[68] F.F. Bruce writes still more exactly that the Babylonian king invaded Egypt already after the siege of Tyre 585—573 BC and replaced the Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) by Amasis:

The siege of Tyre was followed by operations against Egypt itself. Hophra was defeated, deposed and replaced by Amasis, an Egyptian general. But in 568 BC Amasis revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, who then invaded and occupied part of the Egyptian frontier lands.[69]
Flavius Josephus even writes in his Antiquities, citing the 4th century Greek writer Megasthenes that Nebuchadnezzar had control of all northern Africa unto present day Spain:

Megasthenes also, in his fourth book of his Accounts of India, makes mention of these things, and thereby endeavours to show that this king (Nebuchadnezzar) exceeded Hercules in fortitude, and in the greatness of his actions; for he saith that he conquered a great part of Libya and Iberia.[70]
On the other hand Nebuchadnezzar makes no mention of this campaign against Egypt in his inscriptions, at least that are currently known. It is too simple to argue with Herodotus, especially because his credibility was ever since contested.[71] The forty years are not to understand as an exact number. This figure became a significant period of chastisement to the Hebrews remembering the forty years in the desert after the exodus from Egypt.[72]
The protection of the King of Judah[edit]
Isaiah spoke of a prophecy God made to Ahaz, the King of Judah that he would not be harmed by his enemies (Isaiah 7:1-7), yet according to 2 Chronicles, the king of Aram and Israel did conquer Judah (2 Chronicles 28:1-6).
In Isaiah (Isaiah 7:9) the prophet says clearly that a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the prophecy is that Ahaz stands firm in his faith. F.F. Bruce claims that this means Ahaz should trust God and not seek military help in the Assyrians, which Ahaz did.[73]
The death of the king of Judah[edit]
In predicting Jerusalem's fall to Babylon, Jeremiah prophesied that Zedekiah, the king of Judah, would "die in peace" (Jeremiah 34:2-5). However, according to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 52:9-11), he was put in prison until the day of his death.
Apologists maintain that Zedekiah did not suffer the same terrible death as all the other nobles of Judah did when Nebuchadnezzar killed them in Riblah. Jeremiah also told Zedekiah in his prophecy that he would have to go to Babylon, which the Apologists claim implies that he will be imprisoned. There are no historical records of what happened with Zedekiah in Babylon[74] and a peaceful death is not ruled out.[citation needed]
The death of Josiah[edit]
Prophetess Huldah prophesied that Josiah would die in peace (2 Kings 22:18-20), but rather than dying in peace, as the prophetess predicted, Josiah was probably killed at Megiddo in a battle with the Egyptian army (2 Chronicles 35:20-24).[75]
Apologists allege that the prophecy of Huldah was partially fulfilled because Josiah did not see all the disaster the Babylonians brought over Jerusalem and Judah. The prophetess clearly stated that because of Josiah's repentance, he will be buried in peace. But the king did not keep his humble attitude. As mentioned in 2 Chronicles (2 Chronicles 35:22), he did not listen to God's command and fought against the Egyptian pharaoh Necho. It is quite possible that he did this "opposing the faithful prophetic party".[76] Prophecy in the biblical sense is except in some very few cases never a foretelling of future events but it wants to induce the hearers to repent, to admonish and to encourage respectively; biblical prophecy includes almost always a conditional element.[77]



 Map showing the borders of the Promised Land, based on God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:18-21: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
The land promised to Abraham[edit]
Main article: Promised Land
According to Genesis and Deuteronomy (Genesis 15:18, 17:8 and Deuteronomy 1:7-8), Abraham and his descendants, the Israelites will unconditionally (Deuteronomy 9:3-7) own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River for an everlasting possession. But a critic says it never happened, that they never owned all that land forever.[78]
An apologist's counter-claim would be that a reading of Davidic conquests tells of the Israelite occupation of all the promised lands. F.F. Bruce writes:

David's sphere of influence now extended from the Egyptian frontier on the Wadi el-Arish (the "brook of Egypt") to the Euphrates; and these limits remained the ideal boundaries of Israel's dominion long after David's empire had disappeared.[79]
Acts 7:5 and Hebrews 11:13 are taken out of context if used as evidence against the fulfillment of these prophecies. Stephen does not state in Acts that the prophecy was not fulfilled. Moreover, it does not seem any problem for him to mention side by side the promise to Abraham himself and that Abraham did not get even a foot of ground. This becomes understandable with the concept of corporate personality. Jews are familiar with identifying individuals with the group they belong to. H. Wheeler Robinson writes that

Corporate personality is the important Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual and the group—family, tribe, or nation—to which he belongs, so that the king or some other representative figure may be said to embody the group, or the group may be said to sum up the host of individuals.[80]
The letter to the Hebrews speaks about the promise of the heavenly country (Hebrews 11:13-16).
The fate of Damascus[edit]
According to Isaiah 17:1, "Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins", but in fact Damascus is considered among the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world.
An apologist's response to this statement is that this verse refers to the destruction of Damascus as a strong capital of Syria. This was fulfilled during the Syro-Ephraimite War.

The prophecy perhaps dates from about 735 BC, when Damascus and Israel were allied against Judah (Isaiah 7:1). Damascus was taken by Tiglath-Pileser in 732, and Samaria by Sargon in 721.[81]
The passage is consistent with 2 Kings 16:9, which states that Assyria defeated the city and exiled the civilians to Kir.
The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt[edit]
According to Jeremiah 42:17, Jews who choose to live in Egypt will all die and leave no remnant. But history shows that Jews continued to live there for centuries, later establishing a cultural center at Alexandria. A Jewish community exists at Alexandria even to this day.[82]
According to apologists, a more thorough examination of the surrounding text suggests that Jeremiah is stating that no refugees who flee to Egypt would return to Israel except for few fugitives. Jeremiah 42-44 had relevance mainly to the group of exiles who fled to Egypt. It emphasizes that the future hopes of a restored Israel lay elsewhere than with the exiles to Egypt.[83]
The return of Jewish prisoners of war[edit]
Isaiah and Jeremiah (Isaiah 27:12-13, Jeremiah 3:18, Jeremiah 31:1-23, and Jeremiah 33:7) predicted the return of the exiles taken from Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BC. It never happened. Following the conquest of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 721 BC, the 10 tribes were gradually assimilated by other peoples and thus disappeared from history.[84] Unlike the Kingdom of Judah, which was able to return from its Babylonian Captivity in 537 BC, the 10 tribes of the Kingdom of Israel never had a foreign edict granting permission to return and rebuild their homeland. Assyria has long since vanished, its capital, Nineveh, destroyed in 612 BC.
Apologists, however, charge that Luke 2:36 states that Anna the Prophetess, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, was living as a widow in the sanctuary ministering to God with and fastings and petitions night and day. Thus, at least some (tiny) portion of Israel returned, since it was unlikely that a lone female would return to the land of Israel unaccompanied by kinsmen as safe escort.
Although the exiled Israelites from the Northern kingdom did not return from Assyria, apologists state that it must be considered that these passages also contain the expectation of the messianic days. Theologians point out that in Isaiah 27:12-13 Euphrates and the Wadi of Egypt represent the northern and southern borders of the Promised Land in its widest extent (Genesis 15:18) and thus they refer these verses to the return of the Israelites to Jerusalem in the last days, in the messianic time. Israelites will be gathered from wherever they have been expelled from the north, Assyria, to the south, Egypt.[85] Jeremiah's prophecy of Israel's and Judah's return from the north in Jeremiah 3:18 is preceded by the request of Yahweh to the Israelites to come back (verse 14). After fulfilling this condition God will increase their number and none will miss the ark of the covenant (verse 16). All nations will then honour the Lord (verse 17). Consequently Christian scholars refer verse 18 to messianic times when there will be a kingdom united as in the days of David and Solomon.[86] Jeremiah 31 should be seen in context with chapter 30. Some scholars argue that these chapters were written early in Jeremiah's ministry and refer to Northern Israel. Later these poems were updated and referred to Judah as well, probably by Jeremiah himself, when it was realized that Judah had passed through similar experiences to those of Israel.[87] The Book of Consolation (Jeremiah 30:1—31:40) reaches his final, messianic scope in the establishment of a New Covenant between Yahweh and the House of Israel and the House of Judah.[88]
The strength of Judah[edit]
Isaiah 19:17 predicted that "the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt". Assuming that the 'terror' implied was a large-scale military attack of Egypt, it never happened.
According to theologians, the statement that the "land of Judah" will terrify the Egyptians is not a reference to a large army from Judah attacking Egypt, but a circumlocution for the place where God lives; it is God and his plans that will terrify Egypt. Verse 17 has to be understood in its context. The second "in that day" message from verse 18 announces the beginning of a deeper relationship between God and Egypt, which leads to Egypt's conversion and worshiping God (verses 19-21). The last "in that day" prophecy (verses 23-25) speaks about Israel, Assyria and Egypt as God's special people, thus, describing eschatological events.[89][90]
The identity of the conquerors of Babylon[edit]
Isaiah 13:17, Isaiah 21:2, Jeremiah 51:11, and Jeremiah 51:27-28 predicted that Babylon would be destroyed by the Medes, Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz and Elamites. The Persians under Cyrus the Great captured Babylon in 539 BC. Daniel 5:31 incorrectly stated that it was Darius the Mede who captured Babylon.
Christian apologists state that the prophecy in Isaiah 13:21 could possibly have been directed originally against Assyria, whose capital Ninive was defeated 612 BC by a combined onslaught of the Medes and Babylonians. According to this explanation the prophecy was later updated and referred to Babylon[91] not recognizing the rising power of Persia. On the other hand it can be mentioned that the Persian king Cyrus after overthrowing Media in 550 BC did not treat the Medes as a subject nation.

Instead of treating the Medes as a beaten foe and a subject nation, he had himself installed as king of Media and governed Media and Persia as a dual monarchy, each part of which enjoyed equal rights.[92]
Jeremiah prophesied at the height of the Median empire's power, and thus he was probably influenced to see the Medes as the nation that will conquer Babylon. Several proposals were brought forth for "Darius the Mede" out of which one says that Cyrus the Great is meant in Daniel 5:31.
Jehoiakim prophecies[edit]
The prophet Daniel states that in the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah (Daniel 1:1-2). The third year of Jehoiakim's reign was 605 BC, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was in 597 BC that Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, by then Jehoiakim had died.
Apologists respond that this is not a prophecy but a statement. Daniel 1:1 is a problem of dating. But already F.F. Bruce solved this problem explaining that when Nebuchadnezzar, son of king Nabopolassar, was put in charge over a part of his forces, he defeated Necho in the battle of Carchemish 605 BC. In this situation his father Nabopolassar died. Before Nebuchadnezzar as heir apparent returned to Babylon he settled the affairs in the Asiatic countries bordering the Egyptian frontier, which means also Judah, and took captives from several countries as, for example, also from the Jews.[93]
Jeremiah prophesied that the body of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, would be desecrated after his death (Jeremiah 22:18-19, Jeremiah 36:30-31). However, his death was recorded in 2 Kings 24:6 where it says that "Jehoiakim slept with his fathers". This is a familiar Bible expression that was used to denote a peaceful death and respectful burial. David slept with his fathers (1 Kings 2:10) and so did Solomon (1 Kings 11:43). On the other hand, 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 states that Nebuchadnezzar came against Jehoiakim, bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon. Judging from the treatment Zedekiah was accorded when the Babylonians bound him and carried him away to Babylon (Jeremiah 52:9-11), one might justifiably argue that his body probably was desecrated after his death. Jeremiah, however, predicted that Jehoiakim's own people would be his desecraters, that his own people would not accord him lamentations appropriate for a king, that his own people would cast his body "out beyond the gates of Jerusalem".
Apologists proposal for a partial solution:

In the 7th year of his reign, in the month of Kislev (December/January 598/97), Nebuchadnezzar himself left Babylon and undertook the subjection of rebellious Judah. In that same month, King Jehoiakim died in Jerusalem. (On the basis of a comparison with 2 Kings 24:6,8,10ff, with the Babylonian Chronicle, Wiseman 73, lines 11-13, Kislev is the ninth month. In the twelfth month, Adar, Jerusalem was taken. Jehoiachin's reign falls in these three months.) It is not impossible that he was murdered by a political faction who thereby sought more mild treatment for their country. His 18-year old son Jehoiachin was raised to the throne (2 Kings 24:8). Three months later Jerusalem was entirely surrounded by Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city of Judah (al-ya-ahu-du), and on the second day of the month of Adar he comquered the city and took its king prisoner.[94]
Also F.F. Bruce writes that Jehoiakim died in Juda before the siege of Jerusalem began.[95] This would mean that Jehoiakim was desecrated after his death and in this way the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled. The passage in 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 does not speak explicitly about Jehoiakim's death. Thus, it can be seen as a parallel to Daniel 1:1-2[96] which speaks about an event in the lifetime of the king of Judah (see paragraph above). 2 Kings 24:6, nevertheless, remains unclear.
Part of the desecration prophecy was that Jehoiakim would "have no one to sit upon the throne of David" (Jeremiah 36:30), but this too was proven false. Upon Jehoiakim's death, his son Jehoiachin "reigned in his stead" for a period of three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:8-9, 2 Kings 24:6-8). Also, there are biblical genealogies that purport to show Jehoiakim as a direct ancestor of Jesus (1 Chronicles 3:16-17, Matthew 1:11-12).[75]
Apologists say that if Jehoiakim had not been killed by his own people, on the condition that this supposition is true (see preceding paragraph), in all likelihood, Jehoiakim would have been put to death by the Babylonians. The Israelites anticipated what Nebuchadnezzar intended to do. In this case, most probable, Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin would not have become king and Jeremiah's prophecy would have been fulfilled in its full sense. Jehoiachin's successor, Zedekiah, was no descendant of Jehoiakim, but his brother.
The double reckoning of Jehoiachin in Matthew 1:11-12 is made possible by the fact that the same Greek name can translate the two similar Hebrew names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin.[97] In this way in verse 11 Jehoiakim and in verse 12 Jehoiachin is meant. The verse Jeremiah 36:30 says that Jehoiakim's descendants will not be kings in Judah anymore. This does not mean that he cannot be an ancestor of the Messiah.
New Testament[edit]



 The Wailing Wall by night. According to Luke 19:41-44: As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you.
Jesus said in Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44; Luke 21:6 that "no stone" of Jerusalem or of the Second Temple would be left upon another. This prophecy failed, as the wailing wall (a remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Jewish Temple's courtyard,) still remains.
In reply, John Robinson writes that

it was the temple that perished by fire while the walls of the city were thrown down.[98]
The imminence of the second coming[edit]
See also: Second coming
Jesus prophesied that the second coming would occur during the lifetime of his followers and Caiphas, and immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (referred to as abomination of desolation in Matt 24:15).

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28)

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23)

..Again the high priest (Caiphas) asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?""I am", said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62)

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us", they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now-and never to be equaled again. Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24)

(see also Mark 13:1-30, Luke 21:5-35, Mark 13:30-31, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, John 21:22, Matthew 26:62-64, Mark 14:62)
It may be argued that Jesus was not speaking of the second coming in Matthew 16:28 but instead referred to a demonstration of his or God's might; a viewpoint which allows the fulfillment of the prophesy through a variety of traumatic events, notably, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD. The temple's destruction is held by proponents to demonstrate that God was on the side of the Christian people rather than that of the Jews. However, at that time only some of Jesus' disciples still lived.[99] In the same way Matthew 10:23 should be understood.[100] Note, however, that this view (referred to as Preterism) is not the majority view among American denominations, especially by denominations that espouse Dispensationalism.[101][102][103] Furthermore it is a misunderstanding that Jesus meant Caiphas in Mark 14:62. The word "you will see" is in Greek "ὄψεσθε" [opsesthe, from the infinitive optomai],[104] which is plural and not singular. Jesus meant that the Jews, and not just the high priest, will see his coming.
This prophecy is also seen in the Revelation of Jesus to John.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,... Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. (Revelation 1:1,7)

"Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book. ... Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done." ... He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:7,12,20)

Despite the strongly repeated promises to the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 1:4,11) in the 1st century CE, Jesus has not come quickly or shortly according to critics.
Apologists respond that the word "soon" (other translations use "shortly" or "quickly") does not have to be understood in the sense of close future. The Norwegian scholar Thorleif Boman explained that the Israelites, unlike Europeans or people in the West, did not understand time as something measurable or calculable according to Hebrew thinking but as something qualitative.

We have examined the ideas underlying the expression of calculable time and more than once have found that the Israelites understood time as something qualitative, because for them time is determined by its content.[105]

...the Semitic concept of time is closely coincident with that of its content without which time would be quite impossible. The quantity of duration completely recedes behind the characteristic feature that enters with time or advances in it. Johannes Pedersen comes to the same conclusion when he distinguishes sharply between the Semitic understanding of time and ours. According to him, time is for us an abstraction since we distinguish time from the events that occur in time. The ancient Semites did not do this; for them time is determined by its content.[106]
In this way expressions of time, such as "soon", do not mean that the denoted event will take place in close future but that it will be the next significant event.[107]
The Apostle Paul also predicted that the second coming would be within his own lifetime, 1 Thessalonians 4:17:

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
[108]

The philosopher Porphyry (232-305 CE), in his Kata Christianon (Against the Christians), a book burned and banned by the church in 448 CE writes of Paul:

Another of his astonishingly silly comments needs to be examined: I mean that wise saying of his, to the effect that, We who are alive and persevere shall not precede those who are asleep when the lord comes—for the lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout... and the trumpet of god shall sound, and those who have died in Christ shall rise first- then we who are alive shall be caught up together with them in a cloud to meet the lord in the air... Indeed—there is something here that reaches up to heaven: the magnitude of this lie. When told to dumb bears, to silly frogs and geese—they bellow or croak or quack with delight to hear of the bodies of men flying through the air like birds or being carried about on the clouds. This belief is quackery of the first rate.
The apologists answer for the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is that Paul speaks about his own presence at the last day only hypothetically. He identifies himself with those Christians who will still live in the time of Jesus' return but does not want to express that he himself will still experience this.[109] That becomes fully clear some verses later in which he says that the Day of the Lord comes like a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2). The comparison of the Day of the Lord with a thief is a word of Jesus himself (Matthew 24:43-44), which expresses the impossibility to say anything about the date of his second coming (Matthew 24:36).
Notable critics[edit]
Isaac Asimov
Richard Dawkins
Albert Einstein [110]
Christopher Hitchens
Robert G. Ingersoll[111]
Thomas Paine
Bertrand Russell
Mark Twain
Voltaire
See also[edit]
Bible conspiracy theory
Criticism of the Book of Mormon
Criticism of the Talmud
Criticism of the Qur'an
Christ myth theory
Misquoting Jesus
Tahrif
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b "Bible." The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia. West Chiltington: Crystal Reference, 2005. Credo Reference. 29 July 2009
2.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2003). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford. pp. 122–123, 185. ISBN 0-19-514183-0.
3.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. pp. 372–3. ISBN 0-19-515462-2. Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 621, 639, 654. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. Scholars who hold to Pauline authorship include Wohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thornell, Schlatter, Spicq, Jeremais, Simpson, Kelly, and Fee. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 622.
4.Jump up ^ Examples of authors who argue the Jesus myth hypothesis: 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
5.Jump up ^ Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter (1999) The Jesus Mysteries. London: Thorsons (Harper Collins)
6.Jump up ^ "Bible." The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Credo Reference. 29 July 2009
7.Jump up ^ The Bible in the Syriac tradition, Sebastian P. Brock, p. 13
8.Jump up ^ God's conflict with the dragon and the sea: echoes of a Canaanite myth, John Day
9.Jump up ^ Understanding Biblical Israel: a reexamination of the origins of monotheism, Stanley Ned Rosenbaum
10.Jump up ^ The Jewish religion: a companion By Louis Jacobs, p. 251
11.Jump up ^ Exod. 20:14, 1631 edition of the King James Version of the Bible.
12.Jump up ^ Eric Pement, Gimme the Bible that Paul used: A look at the King James Only debate online.
13.Jump up ^ Genesis 19:30-36
14.Jump up ^ "How Can We Trust a Bible that Tolerated Slavery?" Discovery Series, RBC Ministries. July 27, 2009.
15.Jump up ^ [1][dead link]
16.Jump up ^ Schulweis, Harold M. (2009). Conscience: The Duty to Obey and the Duty to Disobey. Woodstock, Vermont: Jewish Lights. pp. 28–30. ISBN 1-58023-419-4.
17.Jump up ^ Saugstad, Andreas. "Nietzsche & Christianity" July 28, 2009.
18.Jump up ^ "Contradictions from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible". Skepticsannotatedbible.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
19.Jump up ^ Knight, George William, Howard Marshall, and W. Ward Gasque. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary). William. B. Eerdmans, 1997. ISBN 0-8028-2395-5 / 9780802823953
20.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1999-05-18). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library). Yale University Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-300-14008-8.
21.Jump up ^ W.D Davies and E. P. Sanders, 'Jesus from the Jewish point of view', in The Cambridge History of Judaism ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984.
22.Jump up ^ Sanders, Ed Parish (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane. p. 85. ISBN 0-7139-9059-7.
23.Jump up ^ Hurtado, Larry W. (June 2003). Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 319. ISBN 0-8028-6070-2.
24.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1977). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. pp. 104–121. ISBN 0-385-05907-8.
25.Jump up ^ The role and function of repentance in Luke-Acts, by Guy D. Nave, pg 194 – see http://books.google.com/books?id=4CGScYTomYsC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix%22&source=bl&ots=ex8JIDMwMD&sig=oCI_C1mXVSZYoz34sVlgRDaO__Q&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYnSjAefnOU2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix%22&f=false
26.Jump up ^ The Continuing Christian Need for Judaism, by John Shelby Spong, Christian Century September 26, 1979, p. 918. see http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1256
27.Jump up ^ Feminist companion to the New Testament and early Christian writings, Volume 5, by Amy-Jill Levine, Marianne Blickenstaff, pg175 – see http://books.google.com/books?id=B2lfhy5lvlkC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix%22&source=bl&ots=vp5GVlmghC&sig=XN1KJCsBkTWO2Fot4SBhnpWoRkY&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYnSjAefnOU2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix%22&f=false
28.Jump up ^ Driscoll, J.F. (1909). "Firmament". In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 26 May 2008 from New Advent. ("That the Hebrews entertained similar ideas appears from numerous biblical passages...").
29.Jump up ^ The Galileo Controversy at Catholic Answers
30.Jump up ^ http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
31.Jump up ^ "Cosmic Detectives". The European Space Agency (ESA). 2013-04-02. Retrieved 2013-04-15.
32.Jump up ^ Barbara Bradley Hagerty (August 9, 2011). "Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve". All Things Considered.
33.Jump up ^ Bible gets a reality check, MSNBC, Alan Boyle
34.Jump up ^ The Bible's Buried Secrets, PBS Nova, 2008
35.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (March–April 2006). "The Western Cultural Tradition Is at Risk". Biblical Archaeology Review 32 (2): 26 & 76.
36.Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (January 2003). "Contra Davies". The Bible and Interpretation. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
37.Jump up ^ The Nature of Home: A Lexicon of Essays, Lisa Knopp, p. 126
38.Jump up ^ Deconstructing the walls of Jericho
39.^ Jump up to: a b http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/news/middle-east/2705-senior-israeli-archaeologist-casts-doubt-on-jewish-heritage-of-jerusalem
40.Jump up ^ Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say, The New York Times, April 3, 2007
41.Jump up ^ Nathan Busenitz, John MacArthur. Reasons We Believe. Crossway, 2008. ISBN 1-4335-0146-5 / 9781433501463. Aug. 6, 2009: [2]
42.Jump up ^ Why did the majority of the Jewish world reject Jesus as the Messiah, and why did the first Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah? by Rabbi Shraga Simmons (about.com)
43.Jump up ^ Michoel Drazin (1990). Their Hollow Inheritance. A Comprehensive Refutation of Christian Missionaries. Gefen Publishing House, Ltd. ISBN 965-229-070-X.
44.Jump up ^ Troki, Isaac. "Faith Strengthened".
45.Jump up ^ Glaser, Zhava. "Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden?" Issues—A Messianic Jewish Perspective. July 30, 2009.
46.^ Jump up to: a b "The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14". Messiahtruth.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
47.Jump up ^ Why do Jews reject the Christian dogma of the virgin birth? The Second Jewish Book Of Why p.66 by Alfred J. Kolatch 1985
48.Jump up ^ Peter, Kirby (2001–2007). "Early Christian Writings: Gospel of Mark". Retrieved 2008-01-15.
49.Jump up ^ Achtemeier, Paul J. (1992). "The Gospel of Mark". The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4. New York, New York: Doubleday. p. 545. ISBN 0-385-19362-9.
50.Jump up ^ Meier, John P. (1991). A Marginal Jew. New York, New York: Doubleday. pp. v.2 955–6. ISBN 0-385-46993-4.
51.Jump up ^ Helms, Randel (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels?. Altadena, California: Millennium Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-9655047-2-7.
52.Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W.; Hoover, Roy W.; The Jesus Seminar (1993). The five Gospels: the search for the authentic words of Jesus: new translation and commentary. New York, New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-541949-8.
53.Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic (1991). The historical Jesus: the life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-061629-6.
54.Jump up ^ Eisenman, Robert J. (1998). James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Penguin Books. p. 56. ISBN 0-14-025773-X.
55.Jump up ^ Simon John De Vries: From old Revelation to new: a tradition-historical and redaction-critical study of temporal transitions in prophetic prediction. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 1995, ISBN 978-0-8028-0683-3, p. 126
56.Jump up ^ Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard: Mercer dictionary of the Bible. Mercer University Press 1990, ISBN 978-0-86554-373-7, p. 414
57.Jump up ^ Joshua 1:1-9
58.Jump up ^ Joshua 15:63
59.Jump up ^ Joshua 17:12-13
60.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 19.
61.Jump up ^ Judges 3:5-6
62.Jump up ^ Biblical peoples and ethnicity: an archaeological study of Egyptians, Ann E. Killebrew, pp. 152-154, 2005
63.Jump up ^ International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, p. 1136
64.Jump up ^ The Old Testament world, By John Rogerson, Philip R. Davies, 1989, p. 358
65.Jump up ^ "The Tyre Prophecy Again". The Skeptical Review. March–April 1999. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
66.Jump up ^ "Ezekiel and the Oracles against Tyre". CRI/Voice Institute. 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
67.Jump up ^ Herodotus, (II, 177, 1)
68.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Ezekiel 29:1,19.
69.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 94.
70.Jump up ^ "Flavius Josephus, Antiquities Book X, chapter 11, first paragraph". Ccel.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
71.Jump up ^ John Marincola, Classical Association, Greek historians, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pages 37-39. Books.google.com. ISBN 978-0-19-922501-9. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
72.Jump up ^ Frederic Charles Cook, ed. (2006-10-04). "Bible Commentary: Proverbs-Ezekiel—footnote to Ezekiel 29:10-12". Ccel.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
73.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 62-67
74.Jump up ^ Siegfried Herrmann, A history of Israel in Old Testament times, London, 1981, SCM Press Ltd, page 284.
75.^ Jump up to: a b "Prophecies: Imaginary and fulfilled". Infidels.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
76.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 84.
77.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; page 1189—introduction to the book of Jonah.
78.Jump up ^ "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise, Farrell Till". Theskepticalreview.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
79.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 32.
80.Jump up ^ Greidanus, Sidney (1999). Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-8028-4449-1. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
81.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Isaiah 17:1
82.Jump up ^ "The Argument from the Bible (1996)". Infidels.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
83.Jump up ^ John Arthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980, page 141.
84.Jump up ^ "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel". Britannica Online. Britannica.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
85.Jump up ^ Herbert M. Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah, published by Zondervan, 1985, page 146
86.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Jeremiah 3:18
87.Jump up ^ John Arthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980, page 552
88.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Jeremiah 30
89.Jump up ^ Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1-39, B&H Publishing Group, 2007, pages 360-363
90.Jump up ^ John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1986, pages 375-381
91.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Isaiah 21:1.
92.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 96.
93.Jump up ^ Daniel's First Verse by F.F.Bruce
94.Jump up ^ Claus Schedl, History of the Old Testament, Volume IV, Translation of 'Geschichte des Alten Testaments', Society of St.Paul, Staten Island, New York 10314, 1972, pages 349-350
95.Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 88.
96.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to 2 Chronicles 36:6
97.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Matthew 11:1.
98.Jump up ^ John A.T., Robinson, Redating the New Testament, London, 1976, page 20
99.Jump up ^ Dr. Knox Chamblin, Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary: Commentary on Matthew 16:21-28—see last 4 paragraphs
100.Jump up ^ Theodor Zahn, F.F. Bruce, J. Barton Payne, etc. hold this opinion is the meaning of Matthew 10:23?
101.Jump up ^ Riemer, Michael (2000). IT Was At Hand. p. 12.
102.Jump up ^ Garland, Anthony (2007). A Testimony of Jesus Christ—Volume 1. p. 114.
103.Jump up ^ Sproul, RC (1998). The Last Days According to Jesus. p. 156.
104.Jump up ^ Online Interlinear New Testament in Greek—Matthew 26
105.Jump up ^ Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with Greek, W.W.Norton & Company, New York—London, 1970, page 137
106.Jump up ^ Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with Greek, W.W.Norton & Company, New York—London, 1970, page 139
107.Jump up ^ Witherington, III, The Paul Quest, InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 140
108.Jump up ^ See also 1Cor7:29-31, 15:51-54 andRomans 13:12
109.Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to 1 Thessalonians 4:15: "Paul includes himself among those who will be present at the parousia: more by aspiration, however, than by conviction."
110.Jump up ^ Einstein: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
111.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.
Further reading[edit]
The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, by C. Dennis McKinsey (Prometheus Books 1995)
The Historical Evidence for Jesus, by G.A. Wells (Prometheus Books 1988)
The Bible unearthed, by I. Finkelstein and N. Asherman (Touchstone 2001)
David and Solomon, by I. Finkelstein and N. Asherman (Freepress 2006)
The Jesus Mysteries, by T. Freke and P. Gandy (Element 1999)
The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty (Age of Reason Publications 1999)
Not the Impossible Faith, by R. Carrier (Lulu 2009)
BC The archaeology of the Bible lands, by Magnus Magnusson (Bodley Head 1977)
godless, by Dan Barker (Ulysses Press 2008)
Why I became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus (Prometheus books 2008)
The greatest show on earth, by Richard Dawkins (Blackswan 2007)
The god delusion, by Richard Dawkins (Blackswan 2010)
101 myths of the Bible by Gary Greenberg (Sourcebooks 2000)
Secret origins of the Bible by Tim Callahan (Millennium Press 2002)
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark S. Smith (Oxford University Press 2001)
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Criticism of the Bible
Bible Research —The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy
Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems, Internet Infidels website
Examination of the Prophecies —Examination of the Old Testament Prophecies of Jesus by Thomas Paine



[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion

























































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
The Bible and history















Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg


































  



Categories: Criticism of the Bible
Criticism of Judaism















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
Deutsch
فارسی
עברית
Magyar
日本語
Português
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last modified on 16 June 2015, at 03:31.
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_the_Bible














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