New Testament critique

Religious texts, especially the New Testament, often receive blind reverence. But they deserve rigorous scrutiny. These documents emerged in historical contexts, written by humans with motives, biases, and agendas. To understand them, we must replace faith with reason. This article dissects the New Testament’s dubious origin, its contradictions, mythological roots, and how religious belief spreads through culture—not discovery.

Authorship and dating of the New Testament

No one wrote the New Testament during Jesus’s lifetime. Mark, the earliest Gospel, appeared around 70 CE—decades after Jesus supposedly died. Luke and Matthew followed around 80–90 CE. John likely came around 100 CE. These aren’t eyewitness testimonies. Anonymous writers composed them, and church tradition later ascribed their names (1).

Luke admits (Luke 1:1–4) that he compiled earlier stories, not original memories. Such long gaps make oral transmission unreliable. As Bart Ehrman notes, stories passed down for decades tend to distort or mutate (2).

Paul’s epistles came earlier than the Gospels. But Paul never met Jesus. He relied on visions and scripture. His letters preach theology, not biography.

Historians still debate whether Jesus of Nazareth existed. Some think a real person inspired the myths. Others argue Jesus was an invented figure—a composite of messianic tropes, myths, and spiritual narratives. No contemporary non-Christian source confirms his life. Without clear evidence, Jesus may have been anyone—or no one at all.

Contradictions and conflicting accounts

Contradictions fill the New Testament. These aren’t minor discrepancies. They expose conflicting agendas and evolving legends:

The resurrection accounts clash. Different women visit the tomb. The angels vary. The message shifts. Jesus appears to different people in different places.
The genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1 vs. Luke 3) diverge completely.
Jesus’s last words differ: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46) vs. “It is finished” (John 19:30).
The nativity stories don’t match. Herod died in 4 BCE. The Quirinius census was in 6 CE—a decade later.
Judas’s death happens by hanging (Matthew) or by falling and bursting (Acts).
The number of angels at the tomb varies: one or two.
The timing of the crucifixion differs: 9 a.m. (Mark) or after noon (John).
The ascension happens in Bethany (Luke), on a mountain in Galilee (Matthew), or not at all (Mark’s earliest manuscripts).
The role of women swings between empowerment (Galatians 3:28) and suppression (1 Timothy 2:12).
The message of salvation fluctuates: faith alone (Romans), deeds (Matthew), or baptism (Acts).
Jesus’s nature shifts from human in Mark to divine in John.
Disciples’ behavior varies. Some flee. Others meet Jesus. Their stories don’t align.
The calling of the disciples happens in different places and times.
The apostles’ names don’t match across Gospel lists.
Divorce teachings change between Matthew and Mark.
The flight to Egypt appears only in Matthew.

Such inconsistencies discredit divine authorship. They reflect oral traditions, rival communities, and evolving theology—not consistency from God.

A non-pedagogical and ethically problematic text

The New Testament lacks coherent moral teaching. It gives no structured ethics. Jesus’s parables confuse more than clarify. Commands like “turn the other cheek” sit next to threats of eternal damnation.

Paul’s letters promote obedience to authority, acceptance of slavery (Ephesians 6:5), and female submission (1 Corinthians 14:34). These reflect Roman norms—not moral universals.

Jesus teaches mercy in some verses but supports eternal punishment in others. He curses a fig tree for having no fruit (Mark 11:13–14)—an act of petulance, not wisdom.

The New Testament never outlines education systems, justice reforms, or economic equity. It offers theological debate, not civil instruction.

Pagan parallels and plagiarized motifs

Christianity borrowed freely from earlier myths:

Virgin births: Horus, Perseus, and Krishna.
Dying and rising gods: Osiris, Tammuz, Dionysus, and Mithras.
Twelve followers: Like the zodiac signs or Heracles’s labors.
Sacred meals: Similar to Mithraic feasts.
Baptism: Found in earlier initiation rites.

Richard Carrier documents these parallels in his work on Christian origins (3). Christianity didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It absorbed motifs already familiar to Greco-Roman audiences.

Cultural inheritance, not discovery

Religious belief spreads like language: through family, not reason. Most people believe the religion of their birthplace. As Daniel Dennett explained, belief is installed early—before critical faculties develop (4).

Children absorb religion emotionally, not intellectually. Later, adults rarely question what they learned as truth. Rituals, holidays, and community cement belief. The Bible becomes sacred not by reason, but by repetition.

Historical fabrication and narrative invention

Many New Testament claims lack evidence or contradict known history:

The census under Quirinius would not have forced families to ancestral towns.
The Massacre of the Innocents appears nowhere outside Matthew.
Nazareth may not have existed as a town during Jesus’s childhood.
The eclipse and resurrection of saints (Matthew 27:52) are unrecorded by historians.
Jesus’s trial before Pilate lacks corroboration in Roman legal records.

These are not historical reports. They’re theological storytelling. Writers shaped myths to fit prophecy and convert audiences.

Should the New Testament be treated as sacred?

The New Testament influenced civilization. Its ideas—love, mercy, hope—resonate deeply. But the book is not flawless. It contradicts itself, borrows myths, preaches cruelty alongside kindness, and misrepresents history.

Its divine status lacks proof. Its ethical system remains inconsistent. Revering it without question stifles critical thinking.

Conclusion: A text to study, not worship

The New Testament reflects human hands. It mirrors ancient anxieties, rival sects, and inherited stories. Its contradictions and mythic roots demand scrutiny.

Faith without evidence is not strength—it is surrender. Modern humanity needs reason, not reverence. Reading the Bible critically affirms curiosity over obedience. And that is how progress begins.

Sources
[1] Britannica, Gospel According to Mark – https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-Gospel-According-to-Mark
[2] Bart Ehrman Blog – https://ehrmanblog.org/
[3] Richard Carrier, Jesus from Outer Space – https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11316
[4] Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell – https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262543752/breaking-the-spell/