Lably
Skip to content

Criticism of Christianity

  • 51 min read
  • 6 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Roman Empire, Crusades and Prejudice

In the early years of Christianity, the Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry emerged as one of the major critics with his book Against the Christians, along with other writers like Celsus and Julian. Porphyry argued that Christianity was based on false prophecies that had not yet materialized. Following the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, dissenting religious voices were gradually suppressed by both governmental and ecclesiastical authorities. Christianity has faced significant theological criticism from thinkers of other Abrahamic religions, particularly including Judaism and Islam. Notably, Maimonides, the renowned rabbi, Jewish philosopher, and Torah scholar of the 12th century, argued that Christian practices and doctrines constituted idolatry and deviated from the strict monotheism (shituf) of Jewish and Muslim theologies. Similarly, Islamic scholars have critiqued Christian beliefs about the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, viewing these concepts as incompatible with the concept of monotheism. These critiques reflect deep theological disagreements rooted in their shared scriptural traditions and divergent doctrinal interpretations. A millennium later, the Protestant Reformation led to a fundamental split in European Christianity and rekindled critical voices about the Christian faith, both internally and externally. In the 18th century, deist philosophers such as Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were critical of Christianity as a revealed religion. With the Age of Enlightenment, Christianity was criticized by major thinkers and philosophers, such as David Hume, Thomas Paine, and the Baron d'Holbach. The central theme of these critiques sought to negate the historical accuracy of the Christian Bible and focused on the perceived corruption of Christian religious authorities. Other thinkers, like Immanuel Kant, offered critiques of traditional arguments for the existence of God, while professing to defend Christian theology on novel grounds.

In modernity, Christianity has faced substantial criticism from a wide array of political movements and ideologies. In the late eighteenth century, the French Revolution saw a number of politicians and philosophers criticizing traditional Christian doctrines, precipitating a wave of secularism in which hundreds of churches were closed and thousands of priests were deported or killed. Following the French Revolution, prominent philosophers of liberalism and communism, such as John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx, criticized Christian doctrine on the grounds that it was conservative and anti-democratic. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that Christianity fosters a kind of slave morality that suppresses the desires contained in the human will. The Russian Revolution, the Chinese Communist Revolution, and several other modern revolutionary movements have also led to the criticism of Christian ideas.

Christians' formal response to such criticisms is described as Christian apologetics. Philosophers like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas have been some of the most prominent defenders of the Christian religion since its foundation.

Scripture

Biblical criticism

Biblical criticism, in particular higher criticism, encompasses a variety of methods that have been used since the Age of Enlightenment in the early 18th century, as scholars began applying the same methods and perspectives already used for other literary and philosophical texts to biblical documents. It is an umbrella term that covers various techniques that mainline and liberal Christian theologians mainly use to study the meaning of biblical passages. It uses general historical principles and is primarily based on reason rather than revelation or faith. There are four primary types of biblical criticism:

  • Form criticism: analysis of literary documents, particularly the Bible, to discover earlier oral traditions (stories, legends, myths, etc.) upon which they were based.
  • Tradition criticism: analysis of the Bible concentrating on how religious traditions grew and changed over the time the text was written.
  • Higher criticism: the study of the sources and literary methods employed by the biblical authors.
  • Lower criticism: the discipline and study of the actual wording of the Bible; a quest for textual purity and understanding.

Textual criticism

Within the abundance of biblical manuscripts, a number of textual variants exist. The vast majority of these textual variants are the inconsequential misspelling of words, word order variations, and the mistranscription of abbreviations. Text critics such as Bart D. Ehrman have proposed that some of these textual variants and interpolations were theologically motivated. Ehrman's conclusions and textual variant choices have been challenged by some conservative evangelical reviewers like Daniel B. Wallace, Craig Blomberg, and Thomas A. Howe.

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 Christian Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses being omitted or marked as non-original. These possible later additions include the following:

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 New Testament (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover and Nestle-Aland) concluding 62.9% (4999/7947) agreement. 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.

The discovery of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls has been taken to demonstrate a high degree of accuracy in the transmission of Old Testament texts:

The biblical scrolls are significant because they disclose the manner in which ancient scribes and copyists transmitted the Bible from generation to generation. These scrolls also provide us with confidence that our Old Testament has been preserved with a high degree of accuracy...

Internal consistency

Inconsistencies in the Christian Bible have been pointed out by critics and skeptics, 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 traditionalists, considering the texts to be consistent, with the Torah written by a single source, but the Gospels by four independent witnesses, and all of the Pauline Epistles, except possibly the Epistle to the Hebrews, as having been written by Paul the Apostle.

While consideration of the context is necessary when studying the Christian 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 concluded 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."

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). He indicates there are expressly false statements in the Bible that are reported accurately. For example, Satan is a liar whose lies are accurately reported as to what he actually said. 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.

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. 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. Other scholars take stronger views, 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 the use of textual criticism modern (critical) copies are considered to "faithfully represent the original", 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.

Unfulfilled prophecy

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, or that the Hebrew Bible influenced the composition of New Testament narratives. Christian apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, which they argue are nearly impossible to fulfill by chance. Many Christians anticipate the Second Coming of Jesus, during which he is expected to fulfill the rest of what they believe are messianic prophecies, such as the Last Judgment, the resurrection of the dead, establishment of the Kingdom of God, and the Messianic Age.

The New Testament traces Jesus's line to that of David; however, according to Stephen L. Harris:

Jesus did not accomplish what Israel's prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf. Isa. 9:6–7; 11:7–12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God's ancient promises—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing—Jesus died a "shameful" death, 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 reply to this argument by stating that Jesus will fulfil these prophecies 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 of Troki, who lived in Trakai, Lithuania, penned a work entitled Chizzuk Emunah (חזוק אמונה, 'Faith Strengthened') that attempted to refute the Christian claim that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible and that Christianity represented a "New Covenant" of God (i.e., that the originally Jewish covenants with God had been replaced). He systematically identified a number of inconsistencies in the New Testament, contradictions between the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible, and prophesies that remained unfulfilled in Jesus's lifetime. In addition, he questioned a number of Christian practices, such as the Sunday Sabbath. Written originally for Jews to persuade them not to convert to Christianity, 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.

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. Apologist Josh McDowell defends the fulfillment of Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) prophecy as supporting Christianity, arguing that prophecies fulfilled by Jesus 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—which, though largely uninterested in the early Christian movement, expressly rejected Jesus as the Messiah—laments that the Messiah had not appeared despite the "scepter" being taken away from Judah.

Prophecy of the Nazarene

Another allegation concerns the reference to the Nazarene in Matthew 2:23:

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

The website for Jews for Judaism claims that "Matthew's claim immediately raises a red flag to anyone knowledgeable of the Jewish bible. Nowhere in the Jewish bible does it say that someone would be called a Nazarene [from Nazareth]. Moreover, this would be impossible since the city of Nazareth did not exist in the time of Jewish scriptures." However, Ken Dark of the University of Arizona states that the combined evidence of three archaeological sites indicates that, "The settlement clearly did exist in the early first century" BCE, probably from "the Late Hellenistic period onward, as a Jewish community." On the other hand, the time period described by the Hebrew Bible is generally considered to end by c. 430 BCE, and the last Hebrew prophet, Malachi, is dated to around then. This is over 400 years before the early first century.

There is also the common suggestion that the New Testament verse is based on a passage relating to Nazirites, either because this was a misunderstanding common at the time or because early Christians deliberately reinterpreted the term. 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.'" 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." The background for this is illustrated by Nathanael's initial response (in John 1:46) to the idea that Jesus might be the Messiah: "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?"

Virgin Birth and descent of Jesus

A fundamental principle of the Christian faith is that Jesus was born of Mary, a virgin. Both Matthew and Luke trace the genealogy of Joseph back to David. According to Jewish tradition, the Messiah must be a descendant of David, but if Jesus was born of a virgin, he cannot be a descendant of David through Joseph. Michael Martin asserts that Mary's virginity is a later addition to Christianity as indicated through Paul's letters. Further, Martin notes that early Christian communities did not seem to have widely believed in the virgin birth. The confusion surrounding the virginity of Mary may result from Septuagint translation of both Hebrew: עַלְמָה, romanized: almah "young girl" and Hebrew: בְּתוּלָה, romanized: bethulah, "virgin" into Greek: παρθένος, romanized: parthenos, which usually means virgin. Relying on this translation, Matthew tried to show that Jesus's virgin birth was foretold in Isaiah 7:14—which refers to an almah in Hebrew.

Selective interpretation

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, such as dietary prohibitions. 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, 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.

Mistranslation

Translation has given rise to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar as well as word meaning. While the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that inerrancy applies only to the original languages, some believers trust their own translation to be the accurate one. One such group of believers is known as the King James Only movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages. Because some of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over the correct interpretation occur.

Criticisms are also sometimes raised because of inconsistencies arising between different English translations of the Hebrew or Greek text. Some Christian interpretations are criticized for reflecting specific doctrinal bias or a variant reading between the Masoretic Hebrew and Septuagint Greek manuscripts often quoted in the New Testament.

Sign in to keep reading

5 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Philosophy