This document is NOT copyrighted. In the interest of liberating others from the tyranny of deception, I am placing this document in the public domain. Please feel free to distribute it as you see fit.
I decided to write this work after seeing the effects of Christian bigotry, in the past, present, and, undoubtedly, in the future. Please note that this is not intended to be an indictment of Jesus "Christ;" I really don't know that much about him. And, as you will see from the evidence presented, neither does anyone else: the Bible, according to most modern, respected biblical scholars, is one of the most tampered scriptures on Earth, with dubious authorship and beginnings.
Nor does this work seek to lump all Christians under the same rock; there are a wide variety of Christian sects, ranging from the ultra-liberal and open-minded Unitarians and Episcopalians to the ultra conservative fundamentalist sects, and all the way over to the lunatic fringe, the white supremecist "Aryan" churches.
This work does, however, censure and condemn those on the so-called religious "right", who perpetuate the mindset of utter bigotry. A "bigot", according to the dictionary, means "one BLINDLY intolerant of the views of others, esp. in the matters of RELIGION, politics, and race." The right-wing religious sects all base their beliefs on the Bible, and its infallibility. I was not content to naively assume that the Bible was infallible; I sought out information on the sources of the Bible, and this work will share what I have found.
And this work certainly does not intend to downgrade theism... although many right-wing Christians certainly proclaim, in their arrogance, that if you are not a Christian, you are an atheist. On the contrary, I have found deep truths in the serene teachings of the Buddha in the "Dhammapada", the sublime teachings of Krishna in the "Bhagavad-gita", the illustrious thoughts of Lao-Tse's "Tao-te Ching". How true is scholar Juan Mascaro's statement that "the Upanishads is the path of light; the Dhammapada is the path of life; and the Bhagavad-gita is the path of love"!
It all starts with the tale in the Old Testament. In Christian mythology, and related in Exodus 32:19-20, there is an episode in which Moses, carrying the stone tablets which supposedly contained the Ten Commandments, comes across some "idol worshippers". Seething with raging fury, he attempts to destroy the idol with the tablets.
This one story has given many persons the idea that such behavior is not only tolerated by God, but is deeply appreciated by him. Here are some examples, the legacy of the Bible:
First, there are the Crusades, a series of eight major military expeditions (and many more minor campaigns), during a period lasting almost 300 years, for the purpose of "rescuing" the "holy" land from the "heathen" Moslems. The Christian Crusaders massacred virtually every man, woman, and child in Jerusalem in 1099. The Children's Crusade of 1212 resulted in many children dying along the way, the others sold into slavery. The Crusades created death, disease, and misery for millions of Christians and non-Christians alike. Yet, even today, a favorite song in Christian churches is "Onward, Christian Soldiers!"
There is also the infamous Inquisition, a series of quasi-judicial institutions of the Christian church which began in 1231, and not officially abolished until 1820! The primary purpose of the Inquisitions was to punish heresy (holding a belief that is not part of the Christian dogma). Those convicted were punished by fines, confiscation of property, imprisonment, and death by burning. Torture against the accused (not just those found guilty) was approved by Pope Innocent IV in the mid 1200s. The Spanish Inquisition, a government branch established with papal approval, was primarily targeted against Jews, and became synonymous with terrorism. Typical of the heresy trials is the history of Joan of Arc in the 15th century, a heroine of the Hundred Years' War. She was captured by the English in 1430, who turned her over to an ecclesiastical (church) court, charged with heresy and sorcery. Her interrogations lasted 14 months. She was found guilty of 1] dressing like a man and 2] heresy (she believed that she was directly responsible to God, rather than to the Church). She was burned at the stake.
The witchcraft hunting of Europe from the 11th to the 17th centuries (and in the United States in the latter part of the 17th century) resulted in the torture and execution (usually by fire) of thousands of persons by devout, well-meaning Christians, with the blessings of the Church. An instance of drought, an epidemic, a baby or a farm animal dying during birth would be enough to start an hysterical witchhunt. People were encouraged to inform on each other, children against their parents, spouses against each other. Just having a birthmark would be enough to make one a suspect. Witnesses were paid to testify against the accused. Confessions were forced by both inhuman tortures as well as promising pardon in return (although pardon was seldom granted). Professional witchhunters were paid a fee for each conviction.
The destruction of the Incan, Mayan, and Aztec civilizations in Central and South America from the 16th to the 19th centuries was impelled by greed, of course, but still with the blessings of the Church, who saw it as an important missionary activity. The drive for the Spanish conquest of the New World came from Queen Isabella, who was such a fervent Christian that she became known as "Isabella the Catholic". She is well known for her activities in starting the Inquisition, and expelling the Jews from Spain. It is ironic that the money that funded Spain's military/missionary endeavors were obtained by the confiscation of the Jews' property during the Inquisition. The end result of these endeavors resulted in vast numbers of South and Central American Indians being killed, not only in combat, but in the diseases brought over by the Europeans (smallpox, syphilis, plague, etc.).
It is also ironic that the United States, which was originally founded by people who were fleeing religious bigotry in Europe, engaged in the subsequent persecution of the native American Indians. This uniquely American concept was called "Manifest Destiny", which proclaimed that the United States had divine sanction (!) "to overspread the (North American) continent allotted to us by God for the free development of our multiplying millions". This concept was used as justification for the United States' endeavors in destroying the indigenous native Indian civilizations. This doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" was later modified to justify the annexation of various Caribbean and Pacific islands.
The issue of the American attitude towards slavery of blacks is also worthy of mention. It is certainly true that many Christian groups started the struggle to abolish slavery, most notably the Quakers. But many Protestant sects split over the question of slavery. Some were in favor of enslaving other human beings, others were opposed.
As you can see, this attitude of spiritual superiority resulted in tremendous amounts of human suffering. But this pales in comparison with the suffering brought on to the Earth and man's fellow creatures. This is the result of the Christian doctrine of "anthropocentrism", the belief that man is the center of the universe. All other life forms, including the Earth herself, exist only for man's enjoyment and amusement. Couple this with the fact that Christianity is an apocalyptic religion (i.e., the belief that the violent end of the world is very close at hand), and you have a philosophy of utter rape of the Earth and her ecosystems. It is for this reason that, when confronted with an "environmental or economic development" issue, many fundamentalists loudly proclaim, "Who care about the environment? Jesus is coming!"
It is this very cavalier attitude towards the environment which led the renowned Buddhist scholar D.T. Suzuki to remark about Christianity: "Man against nature. Nature against man. Strange religion." Contempt for the Earth is in direct opposition of the Hindu and Buddhist concept of "deep ecology", which was [falsely attributed to] the American Indian Chief Seattle: "Man did not weave the web of life. He is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."
Of course, these atrocities are not a relic of the distant past. They still continue today. TV evangelists beg for money to save the "devil-worshipping Hindus". Fundamentalist Christians have condemned the recent World Parliament of Religions (in Chicago in August, 1993), because their main theme was the importance of curbing the world's population. It seems that they consider this anti-Christian! The infamous "dot-busters" of New Jersey are a direct result of Christian intolerance of other religions. The list goes on.
The essence of the Bible, according to Christians is: "Love Jesus, or you will be tortured and killed." If you doubt that, just read the final book of the Bible, "Revelations". The non-Christians are in for a very unpleasant experience.
This theme actually abounds in the Bible. God is jealous (according to the Old Testament's first commandment); he is vengeful and vindictive ("Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord", saith the New Testament). And Revelations shows that God apparently delights in the torment of others.
From this evidence, it is clear that Christians do not worship God, but some sort of demon. Who can deny it?
And threatening someone with eternal torment if they don't love you or your son sounds very odd. Love cannot be forced.
Does Christianity have such a weak philosophical foundation that they have to resort to threat of violence to win converts? Christian revivals appear to exist on emotional fervor alone. "Religion without philosophy is sentimentality."
For example, let us consider a comparative study on the differences between western (Christian) and eastern (Hindu and Buddhist) thoughts on the problem of sin.
Christians believe that only they have a solution for the problem of sin. This is intriguing. Although Christians believe that the individual soul did not exist before its conception in the womb, they still maintain that all men are born into sin, tainted with the "original sin". Although Jesus exhorts people to "be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect", they say that man is inherently a sinful creature, and that Jesus's death on the cross paid for all of our sins... all we have to do is acknowledge that sacrifice. Furthermore, some Christians believe that there is no need to stop sinning, as long as you have faith in Jesus's sacrifice.
Hinduism maintains that sinful activities are due to ignorance. And Hinduism does indeed have a solution to the problem of sin, which is, through the acquisition of knowledge, understanding that the ultimate cause of sin is desire. All sinful activity, and the resultant suffering, is due to desire. A simple look at the world and you can see that practically everyone is in a mad rush to exploit the Earth and other living entities (including his fellow man) in the desire to enjoy. The very motto of civilization is "Enjoy! Entertain yourself!". Human society runs on desire. Even our economy depends on it.
Desire is the cause of sinful activities. And sinful activities is the cause of suffering. Fully 100% of man's inhumanity to man is due to desire. The desire for wealth breed crime and mistrust. The desire for adoration results in envy and arguments. Desire is actually a web, with desire feeding on desire. Desirous to appear desirable to members of the opposite sex, one desires wealth, a fancy car, a fancy wardrobe, etc... and one makes the necessary endeavors to fulfil his desires.
The very basis of Hindu and Buddhist thought is in stressing the importance of the necessity to control desire. The Bhagavad-gita (3.37) calls desire the greatest enemy of the world. By even contemplating desire, one can fall down from the spiritual platform (2.62-63), and desire is one of the three gates leading towards a future hellish existence (16.21). But by conquering desire, one becomes peaceful and serene.
Although Jesus clearly instructed that "ye cannot serve both God and Mammon (cupidity personified, i.e., desire)", it is quite evident that Christianity never addresses the issue of the role of desire at all. Why? Because instead of understanding the necessity of purifying and transforming one's own consciousness (as a prerequisite for salvation), they believe that salvation is a "reward" for their faith and/or works. Incidentally, this is a major reason for the growth of Christianity (especially in India). One of the main tactics most fundamentalist Christian missionaries use is to teach Hindus that there is no need to follow their Hindu religious restrictions. Just as long as they believe in Jesus, they can eat meat, drink, and make merry... and still go to heaven! They are taught that disciplining the mind and controlling the senses is unnecessary, or even unhealthy.
Sinful activities are like fire, and desire is the fuel that feeds the flames. You cannot extinguish fire by pouring fuel onto it.
In short, the Christian tactic to end sin is to try to smother the fire... but the fire soon returns. The Vedic and Buddhist strategy is to cut off the fuel supply to the fire (desire).
Even educated Christians themselves do not claim that the Bible was written by God, or divinely transmitted to man. They say that the Bible was written by men, but inspired by God. This is why the Bible is considered (by biblical scholars and Christians theologians) to be so open to interpretation. But it must be pointed out that just because something is "inspired" does not mean that it is the Absolute Truth. For example, a man may be inspired by his paramour to write a poem about her, but that does not mean that his words are true, nor does it mean that his lover even approves of what he has composed.
The Christians attribute the authorship of the books of the Bible to "traditional" authors. This in interesting, because most of the books of the Bible are truly anonymous. There are very few "signature" verses ("this books was written by..."). In later chapters of this work, I give a listing of modern scholars' educated opinions as to the true authorship of the books of the Bible. These are not blind speculations, but their best scientific opinions resulting from carefully weighing the available evidence. In many cases, I have listed the evidence the scholars used, giving a type of archeological "detective" story. It is intriguing that so many Christians tend to quote scholarly assumptions on the questionable sources of other scriptures, but minimize (or ignore altogether) the opinions of Biblical scholars on their own scripture.
There is a problem in logic which arises when one considers the doctrine that only one scripture is the only valid lawbook. Any argument to support this must come, therefore... from that same lawbook. This is the logical fallacy known as the "circular argument", which is committed when one presents evidence from that which one is trying to prove. In the same way, if you ask a fundamentalist Christian to prove the validity of the Bible, he will usually start quoting verses from the Bible! Here is a mundane example of this fallacy: A thief was dividing up some ill-gotten booty, some jewels, with his two partners in crime. But he kept most of the jewels for himself. "Why is your share of the jewels larger than our share?", asked one of his partners. "Because I am the leader", he replied. "Why are you the leader?", his partner queried. To which he responded, "Because I have more jewels."
As I have previously mentioned, there is great doubt as to the authorship of the different books of the Bible. The compilation in later chapters of this work came from various reputable sources, respected encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, Collier's Encyclopedia, and Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia. And these encyclopedias gathered their information from academically acclaimed biblical scholars. These scholars carefully considered the different evidences concerning the authorship of the books, and made their very best professional, erudite opinions. Fundamentalist Christians tend to completely belittle these arguments, yet they are unable to produce enough evidence (or, in many cases, any evidence) to sway the findings of the scholars. Faith is one thing... but blind faith is another.
And as the later chapters relate, most of the books of the Bible are anonymous. This in itself is very significant. How can a book be considered inspired by God when the author is completely unknown? If you don't know who the author is, how do you know he was divinely inspired?
There is also the question of the character of the author. This question is raised in not only the anonymous books, but also in the books where nothing is known of the author except his name. Was the author a saint or a schemer? We don't know. Yet we are expected to cast our own beliefs aside and put our souls in the hands of this book.
One of the tests on whether or not a hypothesis is valid is by looking
at who is presenting the hypothesis. After all, you would not seek financial advice from a pauper. Yet we are expected to take the spiritual advice of a completely unknown person?
And then there is the disturbing fact that many of the books of the Bible show evidence of tampering. There were modifications and additions. It is fairly certain, then, that there were deletions as well. The question arises, "Who did this?" And more importantly, "Why?" What were their motives? There must have been something in the original that disturbed someone enough to make him want to change it. What was it? These are deeply troubling questions.
There is also the matter of the Biblical canon itself. After all, ancient Israel and the early church knew of many more religious books than the ones that now constitute the Bible. For example, there were 50 gospels in circulation at the time, yet only four made it into the New Testament. Who decided which of the books would become part of the Christian scriptures, and again, "Why?" Who decided, "This book belongs... this book doesn't..."? What were their reasons? What were their motives?
The fact is, there are no clear records available which document the church's process of determining which books were acceptable and which books were unacceptable. The general concensus of opinion among scholars is that the decision was based on whether or not the book agreed with the prevailing theological thought at the time. In other words, the only books accepted were the ones that maintained the "status quo".
This means that the fundamentalists' religion is not based on the Bible, as they claim so fervently... it means the Bible was based on the prevailing religion! This, in itself, is another example of the "circular argument" as related earlier.
It is also interesting that, even though the Biblical canon was purposely chosen to include only books that met the "status quo", there is so much inconsistancy and contradictions in the Bible. And it is even more interesting that so many fundamentalists proclaim that there are no contradictions in the Bible! If that were true, then why are there so many different sects of Christianity?
For example, Christianity is basically divided into three main sects: the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Protestants. And the Protestant branch alone is divided into many different sects: the Adventists, the Amish, the Anglican Church, the Apostolic Faith, the Assemblies of God, the Baptists, the Brethren, the Christian Church, the Church of Christ, the Church of God, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), the Church of the Nazarene, the Congregational Christian Churches, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Congregational Church, the Friends (Quakers), the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Lutherans, the Mennonites, the Methodists, the Pentacostal Churches, the Presbyterians, the Salvation Army, the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, and at least 66 other sects!
And that does not count the different sub-sects of these sects! For example, the Baptists are further divided into: the American Baptist Convention, the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Baptist Association, the Baptist General Conference, the Bethel Baptist Assembly, the Christian Unity Baptist Association, the Conservative Baptist Association of America, the Baptist Church of Christ, the Free Will Baptists... and at least 19 other sub-sects. And there are no "minor differences" between these sub-sects. For example, the Southern Baptist Association was formed in 1845 in large part because of disagreements with other Baptists concerning slavery.
The other Protestant sects are also broken up into various sub-sects. For example, the Methodists have 23, the Mennonites 15; the Presbyterians 9; the Mormons 3; etc. And yet (especially for the more right-wing sects), these numerous sects and sub-sects claim to possess the truth of the Bible in its purest form... and each one are able to quote verses from the Bible to prove it! So much for the "harmony" of the Bible.
This is a list of the authorship of the Bible, according to most modern biblical scholars. This information can be found by looking in any encyclopedia. The scholars base their conclusions by carefully weighing the evidence... there is a reason why they feel the way they do. Although many fundamentalist Christians try to minimize or even ignore these scholarly conclusions, the fact remains that they are completely unable to counter these arguments by any evidence whatsoever. Although they are quick to accept archeological data that verifies a piece of biblical history, and they are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of the scriptures of other religions, they completely downplay a critical, unbiased study of their own supposedly "infallible" scripture, the Bible. Which is ironic, since their entire claim to spiritual superiority rests on their premise that the Bible is perfect and flawless.
In the following analyses, it is important to watch for the references to "editing", "rewriting", and "additions" to the books of the Bible. These changes to the Bible might make one wonder: "Why did someone find it necessary to change this scripture? What was their motive? What was the original scripture lacking? Or what did it say that someone felt it was necessary to change? And who did the changing?"
After reading this section, the obvious question that comes to mind is, "How can someone base their life, and condemn other religions, on such a scripture?"
It doesn't take a scholar to realize that autobiography is very rarely found in it. It is mostly written in the third person ("he said" or "she said", rather than "I said"). Scholars say that the vast majority of the Old Testament consists of stories that were handed down via the unreliable method of oral transmission before they were finally written down. There was a long journey from the creation of these stories until the time they were compiled... and this journey involved storytellers and editors.
It is also important to note that almost none of the books in the Old Testament have "signature verses". Christians and Jews maintain different "traditional" authors, although they have little or no evidence to support these claims. There is also a common misunderstanding among many Christians that the books are by individuals, rather than about individuals. For example, many Christians believe a man named Job wrote the book in the Old Testament, "The Book of Job". But here, as elsewhere, "of" means "about", not "by". This is quite clear in the very first verse of that book: "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job..." (Job 1:1)
Before discussing the authorship of the New Testament, it is important to remember that much of the justification of the New Testament is due to the supposed fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. But, as is clearly shown above, the authorship and the authenticity of the Old Testament is highly doubtful. You cannot build a sturdy house on a flimsy foundation. Similarly, you cannot have a sound argument when your premise for your argument is a weak, shaky presumption.
The philosophic "center" of the New Testament is the first four books (Matthew, Mark, Luke,and John), which are known as the "Gospels". The rest of the New Testament is, for all practical purposes, an elaboration on these four books. Many Christians believe that these four Gospels were written by the direct disciples of Jesus, but, as you will see, this is hardly the case. So even the beloved Gospels are not free from the nagging doubt of dubious authorship. Christians cite the similarity of the Gospels as "proof" of their authenticity. But the similarities between these four books is due to the existence of a alleged collection of the sayings of Jesus called "Q". The compiler of Q is unknown. Christians place enormous faith that this unknown person(s) did not 1) fabricate his own sayings to suit his own agenda, and 2) use saying from questionable sources.
Also, as I noted earlier, there were over 50 different Gospels in circulation at the time the New Testament was compiled. Since the persons choosing the canon used only books that were, more or less, harmonious, it is reasonable to conclude that the results would be... harmonious books!
For example, one book that did not make it into the New Testament was the "Gospel of Peter", because the book does not consider the Crucifixion as an act of atonement. Similarly, the "Acts of John" was not included because of its subversion of traditional Christian teachings (such as, denying the reality of Jesus's physical body). It may be argued that these (and many other books) were not included because of "questionable authorship", but the authorship of these books is no less questionable than other books that have been included.
Another significant, disquieting fact concerning the New Testament is the widely used literary tradition at that time of pseudonymously ascribing new works to a venerated personage of the past in order to give the new concoction credibility! This has, indeed, serious implications for the entire New Testament.
It is interesting to note that Jesus himself never authored any book of the New Testament, not even a paragraph. In fact, most of the New Testament was written by Paul. This has led many to consider that Paul is the architect of modern Christianity, not Jesus. A more accurate name for Christians, then, is "Paulists", not "Christians".
Many Christians believe that Paul was one of the 12 apostles of Jesus, but this is not the case... the 12 were Andrew, John, Bartholomew, Judas, Jude, the two Jameses, Matthew, Peter, Phillip, Simon, and Thomas. After Judas committed suicide, Matthias replaced him. By the way, this is one way of testing the fundamentalist's knowledge of his own religion. Many believe that St. Mark (the alleged author of the Gospel of Mark), and St. Luke (the supposed author of the Gospel of Luke), and St. Paul (the author of many New Testament books), were members of the 12 apostles, Jesus' direct disciples. But they are not on the list.
As for Paul, who plays such an important part of Christian theology, it is important to note that he never met Jesus. In fact, he was active in the persecutions of early Christians, claiming it to be an unlawful Jewish cult. Acts 8:1 depicts Paul as agreeing with the stoning of the first Christian martyr, St. Stephen: "And Saul (Paul's pre-Christian name) was consenting unto his [Stephen's] death." Saul was converted to Christianity later, and became a zealous missionary (perhaps motivated by extreme guilt for his atrocities).
THE END
Go Back
to Shy David's Bible Scholar Page.