Criticism of Christianity has a long history that stretches back to the initial formation of the religion in the Roman Empire. Critics have challenged Christian beliefs and teachings, as well as actions taken in the name of the faith, from the Crusades to modern terrorism. The arguments against Christianity include claims that it is a faith of violence, corruption, superstition, polytheism, homophobia, bigotry, pontification, abuses of women's rights, and sectarianism.
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.Le Roy Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers , Vol. I, Washington D.C. Review & Herald 1946, p. 328. 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.Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason, pp. 553–69, cf. Kant's May 1793 letter (Ak 11:414) expressing "true respect for the Christian religion [that has] been my guide in this work," aiming at a "union of the Christian religion with the purest practical reason."
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.Robert R. Palmer and Joel Colton, A History of the Modern World (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995), pp. 388–92. 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.Robert R. Palmer and Joel Colton, A History of the Modern World (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995), p. 630. 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.Browning, W.R.F. "Biblical criticism." A Dictionary of the Bible. 1997 Encyclopedia.com. 8 Apr. 2010 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:Robinson, B.A. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2008. Web: 8 Apr 2010.
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.Mather, G.A. & L.A. Nichols, Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult, Zondervan (1993) (quoted in Robinson, Biblical Criticism 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,Bruce Metzger, cited in The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel 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, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. New York: Oxford U. Press, 1993 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.Wallace, Daniel B. 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
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:Bruce Metzger "A Textual Commentary on the New Testament", Second Edition, 1994, German Bible Society The ending of Mark The story in John of the woman taken in adultery, the Pericope Adulterae An explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John, the Johannine Comma
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.K. Aland and B. Aland, "The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Text Criticism", 1995, op. cit., pp. 29–30. 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,See for example the list of alleged contradictions from The Skeptic's Annotated Bible and Robert G. Ingersoll's article Inspiration Of Bible. 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,M.W.J. Phelan. The Inspiration of the Pentateuch, Two-edged Sword Publications (March 9, 2005) Ronald D. Witherup, Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know, Liturgical Press (2001), page 26. but the Gospels by four independent witnesses,France, R.T., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England (1985), pg. 17. 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."Britannica Encyclopedia, Jesus Christ, p.17
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).Lindsell, Harold. "The Battle for the Bible", Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA (1976), pg. 38. 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.