The Bible: A Viable Scripture?
Christianity is a vast faith which encompasses several different groups and denominations. Critical to Christianity is the Bible and one of my primary contentions with the Christian faith is the dubious nature of the Bible.
A religion is often rooted in a central figure and their teachings. In the case of Christianity this would be Jesus (Peace be Upon Him) and the Bible (which contain his teachings). So, if the Bible is not reliable, then what does Christianity have to stand on?
My main contentions with the Bible can be grouped into 3 main categories. They are:
- The need to infer who God is
- Preservation of the Old Testament
- Compilation of the New Testament
I aim to critically analyse the Bible in light of these three points. I hope my arguments can initiate dialogue with the Christian community and ultimately we can all come closer to the truth.
Inferring “Who is God?”
In any religion a basic yet crucial point that must be answerable is “Who is God?”. Whether it be one God, multiple gods, idol worship, a human or even no god at all, whatever the nature of their divine entity, a religion must make this point very clear. But when we look to Christianity this is simply not the case. The concept of God inferred from the Bible appears to be unclear.
The prevailing conception of a deity in Christianity is that of the Nicaean Trinity where the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all one God yet three different entities who are co-equal and co-eternal. The very nature of the Trinity was debated on for centuries before the First Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople (300AD). It was in these councils that the Nicaean Trinity doctrine was solidified and all other variations of the Trinity were thrown out as heresies.
Some views that Christians had prior to the Councils include Arianism, Adoptionist (Dymanic Monarchianism) and Modalistic Monarchianism. They all varied significantly on their view of God, but the one matter they all seemed to have in common was the subordination of Jesus and the existence of a hierarchy within the Trinity (if they believed in one at all). Many even questioned the existence of the Holy Spirit as an individual entity.
Though these branches of Christianity do not exist anymore, there are still several denominations in Christianity that do not believe in Nicaean Trinitarianism such as Jehovah’s Witness, Seventh Day Church of God, United Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals and Christian Science. All these divisions have their own take on the Trinity, stemming from no direct or clear statement from the Bible which defines the nature of God. Thus, different denominations/groups can extract different views of God from the same Bible and those views just cannot be undoubtedly disproved.
Preservation of the Torah
One of the major books in the Old Testament is the Torah. The Torah we have today is believed to be the exact same Torah revealed to Moses (PBUH), though strong evidence suggests that this is unlikely and that the Torah has been altered over time.
There have been multiple studies performed by Hebrew scholars which have undoubtedly confirmed that there have been changes in the Torah. This can be seen from comparisons between ancient copies of the Torah (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) and the current Torah used today. Though these changes are minor, they do prove that there have indeed been alterations.
Though there is a far more concerning issue with the Torah which is its authorship. In the last few centuries, extensive research on the Torah, indicates that it does not originate from a single author, as traditionally believed, but rather from a range of sources. This was deduced from several factors including; differences in parallel accounts of the same incidents, changes in writing style and vocabulary and inconsistencies found throughout the Torah.
One of the models used to explain the composition of the Torah is the Documentary Hypothesis. The model postulates that the Torah is a compilation of 4 documents which are the Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomist (D), and Priestly (P) sources. There are newer models that have also been presented such as the Supplementary Hypothesis and the Fragmentary Hypothesis which differ in regard to the chronology of the sources and the sources involved, though all models agree that the original Torah has not been preserved and large additions and alterations to the original text have taken place.
Now some people may say that these are just models and are not concrete historical certainties, though the fact that Hebrew scholars have considerable evidence from within the Torah itself to develop substantial models suggesting that there have been major alterations/additions to the Torah is distressing and cannot be merely ignored.
فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِندِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُوا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby”. (Quran 2:79)
Compilation of the New Testament
The New Testament is comprised of 27 books, the most important of which are the Four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The writers of Gospels are unknown and were added later as guesses as to who wrote them. Matthew is said to be written by St Matthew who was a tax collector and one of the 12 Apostles of Jesus; Mark is written by St Mark who was a disciple of St Peter (one the 12 Apostles); Luke is written by St Luke who was a close associate of St Paul (though Paul never met Jesus in person); and the author of John is largely debated, though some would attribute its authorship to St John the Apostle, there is considerable evidence against it.
We first have Mark and Luke who did not meet Jesus in person and relied on second-hand recounts which significantly affects their reliability. The author of the Gospel of John is essentially unknown leaving Matthew to be the only Gospel written by a disciple of Jesus. Though even this does not make sense when analysing the Gospels. Matthew was written after Mark and close to 90% of the Matthew appears to be directly from Mark. Even certain Biblical scholars agree that Matthew copied off Mark, but why would one of the 12 Apostles copy off the work of someone who never even met Jesus? This throws the authorship of Matthew into question too. Even 50% of Luke appears to take directly from Mark and many Biblical scholars agree that Luke did copy off Mark. Given the minimal reliability of the Gospels’ authorship, how could we possibly follow them as life doctrines?
Next is the issue of compilation. There were several more Gospels that were written and the four Gospels we have today were chosen based on several criterion, including the number of manuscripts available, how well their contents work together, which ones seemed realistic and didn’t have improbable recounts and who wrote them. Though this criterion is relatively fair, this was all done in the year 367AD, and there is only so much accuracy that one can have when determining which Gospels portray the life of Jesus the best over 300 years after his disappearance. The similarity of the Gospels is not even a valid criterion given it is clear that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are copied from the Gospel of Mark.
The Gospels may have similarities but there are also huge contradictions and flaws present, including major doctrinal inconsistencies. Below are just some of the many major inconsistencies present in the Bible.
- Matthew and John were supposedly written by 2 disciples of Jesus yet their portrayals of him are vastly different. In Matthew, Jesus teaches about the coming kingdom of God and almost never about himself or his divinity; in John, Jesus teaches almost exclusively about himself, including supposed allusions to his divinity. Matthew presents a much more human Jesus while John presents a much more divine Jesus. Some may say this occurred because the disciples each has different perspectives on Jesus. Though this is an unconvincing justification used to reconcile the differences. You can’t have two vastly different accounts on the same person, especially regarding what they said.
- In certain parts of the Bible, it is said that faith alone saves the people (as mentioned in Ephesians 2:8–9 and Romans 3:28) though there are multiple other verse which disagree and state that faith alone is not enough and actions/deeds are required to be saved (such as in James 2:14, Revelation 20:12 and Matthew 16:27)
- Matthew attempts to fulfil a prophecy in which Jesus rides two animals simultaneously in Matthew 21:1–7. This incident appears to fulfil the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9, though Matthew misread it thinking there were two animals when in fact the verse only spoke about one, though in a manner those unfamiliar with Hebrew could misunderstand. This is clear proof that there are forged events within Matthew.
- In John 20–21, Peter sees Jesus after his resurrection and there is a detailed account of the whole incident; yet in Mark (who was Peter’s disciple) there is no mention of this at all. How would John know something so amazingly significant which Peter experienced, that Peter himself did not tell his disciple?
- Matthew 28:19 calls upon the disciples to preach Christianity to all the nations while in several other locations, like Matthew 10:5–6 and 15:24–26, Jesus explicitly states that he was “sent to only the lost sheep of Israel” and orders his disciples to not go to the Gentiles (non-Israelites). In addition to this, some may use Matthew 28:19 to also support the doctrine of the Trinity as it says to baptize people “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” though many citations of church fathers have mentioned that this is a clear interpolation added to justify the doctrine of the Nicaean Trinity.
These are just some of the many discrepancies and flaws that exist within the Gospels.
These are amongst a copious number of issues with the Bible, others being its translation, the preservation of the New Testament, the involvement of Constantine, contradictions between the Old and New Testaments, issues with the Pauline Epistles, alterations within Nevi’im (Prophets) and much more. These points lead to the conclusion that Christianity cannot be the current true religion of God.
Could the Bible possibly be the word of God when God’s word could never be imperfect? And yes, there most likely is truth within these Gospels, but how do we know what is and isn’t true?
It is illogical for God to provide us with such an unreliable text to connect to Him with. A text where one doesn’t even know who God is. This is why it is logical for God to have given the people at least one other revelation which is reliable and free of error, and I see that text as the Quran. Why do I see it as the Quran? Well that’s discussion for another blog post.
As a closing message I ask all my esteemed Christian readers to consider the true nature of the Bible you strongly hold onto. Do not dismiss these issues as mindless nonsense or misguidance. I am asking you to read your Bible. Look at its composition, its contents, its formation and be true to yourself and to God. We must have trust in God, and we must also use our own logic to arrive to His truth. If not, then why would He provide us with intellect?
يُؤْتِي الْحِكْمَةَ مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَمَن يُؤْتَ الْحِكْمَةَ فَقَدْ أُوتِيَ خَيْرًا كَثِيرًا ۗ وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ
“He gives wisdom to whom He wills, and whoever has been given wisdom has certainly been given much good. And none will remember except those of understanding”. (Quran 2:269)
By Z.T
