Menu
Kritikan terhadap agama Kristian
Kritikan Bible, kritikan tertentu yang lebih tinggi, meliputi pelbagai kaedah yang digunakan sejak Pencerahan di awal abad ke-18 sebagai ulama mula untuk memohon kepada dokumen alkitabiah kaedah dan perspektif yang sama yang telah digunakan untuk lain-lainteks sastera dan falsafah.[1] Ia adalah istilah payung yang merangkumi pelbagai teknik yang digunakan terutamanya oleh ahli-ahli teologi Kristian Tali tambahan gelung kekili dan liberal untuk mengkaji makna petikan Bible. Ia menggunakan prinsip-prinsip sejarah umum, dan berdasarkan kepada sebab dan bukannya wahyu atau kepercayaan. Terdapat empat jenis utama kritikan Bible: borang, tradisional, kritikan yang lebih tinggi dan lebih rendah.[2]
Conservative Christians, as well as much of Orthodox Judaism and Karaite Judaism, support the idea that the Bible is historically accurate. Moderate and liberal Christians generally accept the historicity and reliability of scripture in varying degrees, but differ primarily on interpretation of particular passages—from literal meanings to metaphorical intent in some regard.
Inconsistencies have been alleged 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 of Tarsus.
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][halaman diperlukan] 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 originals",[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.
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][halaman diperlukan] 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 Judgement, the general resurrection, establishment of the Kingdom of God, and the Messianic Age (see the article on Preterism for contrasting Christian views).
God gave Abraham unconditional promises entailing multitudinous progeny, nationhood, royal leaders, and land possession. The Hebrew Bible's prophetic literature ends waiting for Judah to be restored via a new monarch, one who will restore the Davidic kingdom and possibly create universal peace. The New Testament traces Jesus' 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.Templat:Bibleref2c Templat:Bibleref2c-nb 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.Templat:Bibleref2c [17]Many Christians counter this argument by stating that these prophesies will be fulfilled by Jesus in the Millennial Reign after the Great Tribulation.[petikan diperlukan]
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]
Critics[nyatakan menurut siapa?] 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:
Within the wealth 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][29][30]
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:[31][32]
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 Aland 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.[33] 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".[33]
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.
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[34][35] or a variant reading between the Masoretic Hebrew and Septuagint Greek manuscripts often quoted in the New Testament.
Translation of Almah as Virgin: Matthew 1:22-1:23 reads: "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him 'Immanuel'—which means, 'God with us.' " From the earliest days of Christianity, Jewish critics have argued that Christians were mistaken in their reading of the word almah ("עלמה") in Isaiah 7:14.[36] 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).[34]
Christians also counter this argument by stating that Genesis 3:15 refers to the "seed of the woman" when in fact there is no such thing, therefore prophesying a virgin birth.
"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."The Greek text of Matthew 1:23 uses the term "parthenos," which is the usual Greek word for virgin:
"[…] Ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον και καλεσουσιν το ονομα αυτου εμμανουηλ ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον μεθ ημων ο θεος". (Matthew 1:23 1881 Westcott-Hort)[37]However, the Hebrew text at 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.[38]The Jewish translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek that was in use during the first century, the Septuagint, uses the word "parthenos" ("virgin") in Isaiah 7:14 rather than the usual Greek word "neanis" for "young woman".[39] 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.[40]
The use of the Hebrew word "almah" in the Hebrew Masoretic Text of Isaiah has stirred debate among translators and has resulted in variations between Bible translations, with some translations using "young woman" as does the New English Translation or NET Bible:
“For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.”Templat:Bibleref2cThe text from the Luther Bible uses the German word "Jungfrau", which is composed literally of the words "young" and "woman", although it is common to use this word for "virgin". This ambiguity results in a similar reading to the original Hebrew in the text of Jesaja (Isaiah) 7:14. "Darum wird euch der HERR selbst ein Zeichen geben: Siehe, eine Jungfrau ist schwanger und wird einen Sohn gebären, den wird sie nennen Immanuel."[41] in English: "For this reason, the LORD himself will give to you(plural) a sign: See, a virgin/young woman is pregnant and will bear a son, whom she will name Immanuel."
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.[42] 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.[43]
(For more information, see the articles on the Virgin birth of Jesus and Isaiah 7:14.)
Prophecy of the Nazarene:Another example is 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."[34][44] 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.'"[45] 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.[46] 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?"[45]
Menu
Kritikan terhadap agama KristianBerkaitan
Rujukan
WikiPedia: Kritikan terhadap agama Kristian