The Bible: what it is Part 6

'That the Jews, like every other nation of antiquity, have framed for themselves a mythical history, which, with the lapse of time, has been received for fact. This at once releases us from the necessity of any elaborate contrivances for reconciling their belief with probability and the laws of nature; and exhibits a phenomenon so universal and so natural, that it would have been a miracle if the Jewish literature had been an exception to it. But the transition from regarding the first chapters of Genesis as an inspired record, to treating them as only a picture of the popular notions of the age in which they were produced, is too violent to be made at once by any large portion of the public.

We are not sorry, therefore, that, from time to time, hypotheses are proposed which smooth the descent from one of these opinions to the other, and make the gradients safer. The clerical geologists would have been suspended by their diocesans, or hooted from their pulpits, if they had not been able, at first, to profess that their discoveries confirmed the Mosaic account of the deluge, and did not contravene that of the creation. Time has familiarised men with the idea that they are not to look into Scripture for geology; and we hope that its professors will soon come openly to avow this, and cease to torture the words of Genesis into a conformity with their science. Public opinion is so tyrannically intolerant, and its penal power so fearful, that we cannot expect the whole truth to be told, or even to be seen, at once. But while we admit the temporary value of such intermediate stages of opinion, we are bound to declare our judgment that they are merely temporary, and have no solid basis.'

My only object in collecting together these criticisms on the Bible, is to free the human family from the many evils which, in my opinion, attach to, and are consequent on, a belief in the divine origin of the Book.

The child is taught to believe the Bible is the word of G.o.d, at an age when he can scarcely read its words; he is taught to regard with horror every attempt to criticise its pages; and the result is, that when his senses point out a fact, and that fact clashes with his Bible, he is bewildered and confused, he knows not what to think, and unless he be of great mental power, he ends by not thinking at all, and becomes professedly a believer, but in reality a man who dares not reason.

BOOK II. EXODUS

The t.i.tle, 'Second Book of Moses,' is an interpolation, forming no part of the text. The remark on page four, as to t.i.tles and headings, applies to the whole of the Bible.

*Chapter 1., vv. 6 and 7. 'Joseph died and his brethren, and all that generation and the children of Israel were fruitful, * * * and the land was filled with them.' If these words mean anything, they mean that in the duration of a little more than one generation, the children of one man multiplied so as to fill the whole of the land of Egypt, and to become exceedingly mighty. Devout believers can only wonder that this numerous and exceedingly mighty people allowed the Egyptians so to maltreat and oppress them; or that this fruitful and abundantly increasing people wno filled all the land, had only two midwives to attend them. The believers may also wonder why G.o.d made houses for those midwives to live in, when if the Israelites were so exceedingly fruitful and numerous, the midwives could have but little time to live in their own houses, but must have been always employed in their professional avocations. Admirers of G.o.d's truthfulness may likewise wonder why he rewarded the midwives for telling Pharaoh a lie, when by his power he might have saved them the necessity.

*Chapter ii., vv. 16, 17, 18. From these verses it would seem that the name of the father-in-law of Moses was Reuel, but according to chap.

iii., v. 1, chap, iv., v. 18, chap, xviii., vv. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12, his name was not Reuel, but Jethro, while according to Numbers, chap, x., v.

29, his name was neither Reuel nor Jethro, but was Raguel. On reference to the Hebrew text, I find the same word [------] is carelessly anglicised as Reuel and Raguel; this will not, however, explain the third name, Jethro, and if we treat Moses as the author, it will be difficult to understand how he could be mistaken in the correct name of his own father-in-law.

Verses 23 and 24. These verses imply that until the cries and groanings came up to G.o.d, he had forgotten his chosen Israelites, and his solemn covenant, oath, and promise. This view is confirmed by the Douay translation of verse 25, which adds, 'And the Lord looked upon the children of Israel, and he knew them.' As though he had refreshed his memory by so looking on them.

*Chapter iii., v. 2. The Douay says that 'the Lord appeared,' instead of the angel. The picture of the Omnipotent and: Eternal G.o.d appearing as a flame of fire in the middle of a bush, which burns, but is not burnt, and desiring Moses to take his shoes off, is scarcely calculated to arouse a reverential feeling in our minds.

Verse 6. In Genesis, chap, x.x.xv., v. 10, G.o.d said of Jacob, 'Thy name shall not be any more called Jacob, Israel is thy name,' yet we find he calls himself 'the G.o.d of Jacob,' and uses the name 'Jacob' no fewer than eight times in the book of Exodus alone. {50} Verse 22. This mode of 'borrowing' seems very much like stealing, and the translators of the Breeches Bible in a note say that this example is not to be followed generally.

*Chapter iv., v. 14. The anger of the Lord kindled, and why? Because Moses tells him that ne is not a good speaker, and that he (Moses) therefore desired the Lord to choose somebody else to represent his wishes to Pharaoh and the Jews. But why should the Lord be angry?

he must have himself foreknown and foreordained that Moses should be reluctant to go.

Verse 21. What are the miracles which are previously mentioned but so many incidents in a solemn farce, if G.o.d had already determined that Pharaoh should pay no attention to them? The serpent, rod, and the leprous hand, not being intended by G.o.d to move Pharaoh, of what use are they? In the third chapter, G.o.d tells Moses to use subterfuge to Pharaoh, by pretending that the Jewish nation only wanted to go three days' journey to sacrifice in the wilderness, and at the same time G.o.d says that he is 'sure the King of Egypt will not let you go.' If G.o.d is the ruler and ordainer of all things, he must have ruled and ordained that his chosen people should be ill-treated by Pharaoh, whom G.o.d must have created for that very purpose. Can anything be more inconsistent and less calculated to enable us to admire the character of a just and merciful Deity?

Verse 26. What does this mean? If the Lord sought to kill Moses, what hindered him from carrying out his desire? It is strange that he should seek to kill the very man whom he had selected to lead his chosen people out of Egypt. The circ.u.mcision of the son of Moses seems connected with the story, but not very clearly. The abrupt transition from the message to Pharaoh, to the seeking to kill Moses, shows that something has been lost from the original text. The verses 22 to 27 read as they stand are absurd. In our version we are told that _after_ the Lord let Moses go, Zipporah said 'A b.l.o.o.d.y husband thou art, because of the circ.u.mcision.'

In the Douay we find that Zipporah used these words _before_ the Lord let Moses go.

Verses 28, 29, and 30. Aaron who wrought the signs, and spoke the words to the people, did so without any direct communication from G.o.d. He must have been more credulous than Moses, for he seems to have readily undertaken, upon the mere representation of his brother, that which his brother had hesitated to do, although personally commanded by G.o.d.

In chap, v, we find that Moses complains to G.o.d that the Jews are worse off since his message, and he expresses himself in a manner which implies doubt as to whether G.o.d really intend to deliver his people.

*Chapter vi., v. 3 (see also page 38 of this work), Here is a positive statement that G.o.d was known unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the name [------] (Bal Shadi, translated, G.o.d Almighty), but not by the name [------] (yeue, anglicised as Jehovah). This statement, professedly from the lips of G.o.d himself, is absolutely contradicted by the book of Genesis, in which the name [------] occurs no less than {51} 130 times.

In the Douay it reads, 'and my name Adonai I did not show them,' and in a foot-note we are told that the name Adonai is subst.i.tuted for the four letters [------], because the Jews out of reverence never p.r.o.nounce "this word. This is not true: the Jews simply do not p.r.o.nounce the word, because without points it is unp.r.o.nounceable. 'The nearest approach to the exact utterance or p.r.o.nunciation of this word will be produced by suspending the action of all the organs of articulation, and making only that convulsive heave of the larynx, by which the bronchial vessels discharge the acc.u.mulated phlegm; it is enunciated with the most eloquent propriety in the act of _vomiting?_ (_Vide_ Taylor's 'Diegesis,' chap. 22.)

Verses 12 and 30. The fear expressed by Moses that Pharaoh will not listen to him, because he (Moses) has not been circ.u.mcised, is strongly corroborative of Voltaire's criticism given on page 35 of this work.

Verses 26 and 27 could never have been written by Moses, but must have been written long after, by some one who wished to identify the Aaron and Moses of the genealogy with the Aaron and Moses to whom the Lord spoke.

*Chapter vii., v. 1. What is meant by the words 'I have made thee a G.o.d to Pharaoh?' In what sense could Moses be considered as Pharaoh's G.o.d?

He was not worshipped by Pharaoh, nor did he rule Pharaoh.

Verses 10, 11, and 12. Is it necessary to argue in the middle of the nineteenth century that the whole account of these miracles are unreasonable as well as impossible? unreasonable, because even the most pious Theist, if he claimed for G.o.d the power to turn a rod into a serpent, would hardly concede the same power to the sorcerers and magicians of Egypt. The throwing down the rod by Aaron, its change into a serpent, and the swallowing the other rods, form a display without purpose or utility, because G.o.d has already predestined that they should produce no effect whatever upon Pharaoh.

Verses 19, 20, and 21. These verses, if they mean anything, mean that the _whole of the water_ in Egypt was turned to blood; if so, the twenty-second verse would be incorrect in stating that the magicians did the same, because, _if all the water_ were already turned to blood by Aaron, there would not be any left for the magicians to operate upon. We are told that this plague was throughout the whole of the land of Egypt; if so, the Jews must have suffered equally with the Egyptians. This for seven days in a warm country would have been a terrible plague. The same remarks apply to the following plague of frogs.

*Chapter viii., w. 17 and 18. It is scarcely a matter for wonder that the magicians could not turn the dust into lice, when we are told that _all the dust_ had been previously changed bv Aaron.

Verses 22 and 23. It is evident from these verses that the Jews had been equal partic.i.p.ators in all the evils attaching to the previous plagues.

*Chapter ix., v. 10. What beasts could the boils break out on, when all were killed by murrain in verse 6? {52} Verses 19, 20, 21, and 25.

Either the cattle which were dead in verse 6 had been restored to life, of which we have no account, or these verses are positively absurd as well as false.

*Chapter xi., v. 3. 'And the Lord _gave_ the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians.' The Douay reads, 'And the Lord _will give_ favour to his people.' Our version is evidently incorrect, because the Egyptians afterwards suffered another plague, which would have been unnecessary.

'And the man Moses was very great in the land.' Moses can scarcely be supposed to have written this.

*Chapter xii., v. 29. In this verse is related the horrible consummation of a series of plagues which G.o.d had caused to fall on the Egyptians.

And why all this punishment? Was it because the Egyptians as a nation had oppressed the Israelites? If so, the cattle, the trees, and the green herbs were sharers in the punishment although not in the offence, and the Egyptians could never have oppressed the Israelites if it had not been permitted by the Omnipotent Deity who had sworn to protect and cherish them. Was the punishment because Pharaoh would not let the Children of Israel go? If so, what had the first-born of the 'maid-servant in the mill and of the captive in the dungeon' to do with his offence? But even Pharaoh was specially controlled by G.o.d; in chap, iv., v. 21, chap, vii., v. 3, chap, ix., v. 12, chap, x., vv. 1, 20, and 27, chap, xi., v. 10, and chap, xiv., v. 4, we have distinct repet.i.tions of the statement that G.o.d himself hardened Pharaoh's heart and prevented him from allowing the Children of Israel to go. Then, why all this punishment? In chap, ix., v. 16, chap, x., v. 2, and chap. xiv. v. 4, we are told that G.o.d raised Pharaoh up for the very purpose of smiting him and his people, so that the name of G.o.d might be declared throughout all the earth, that the Israelites might worship the Lord, and that the name of G.o.d might be honoured amongst the Egyptians; and to attain this result, G.o.d plagues and torments the Egyptian nation with most painful and destructive plagues, killing the first-born in every family, from him that sat on the throne to the captive in the dungeon, and ending by drowning Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea. The religious thinker who attempts to contemplate this horrible picture, and who might, perhaps, be tempted to blaspheme by questioning G.o.d's justice and goodness, will be saved from this dilemma by a consciousness of the falsity of the whole tale, which is manifested in a most ridiculous manner. According to chap, ix., vv. 3 and 6, all the cattle of the Egyptians, their horses, a.s.ses, camels, oxen, and sheep, were killed by the murrain; by verse 10 of the same chapter, a boil breaking forth with blains is sent upon the same cattle; by verse 19 the Egyptians are cautioned to gather in _their already dead cattle_ lest they should again die from the effects of the hail, and those who feared the Lord amongst the servants of Pharaoh made his _dead_ cattle flee into the house lest they should be killed again, and those who did not fear the Lord had their cattle killed a second time by the hail; in chap, x., v. 25, Moses asks Pharaoh to give him some of his _twice killed_ cattle that he may kill them a third time as sacrifices to the Lord; in chap. {53} xii., v. 29, G.o.d, in the night, kills the first-born of all the cattle, some of which must have been _thrice_ killed; yet, despite all this (notwithstanding they had all been killed by the murrain, nearly killed over again by the boils and blains, killed another time by the hail, and the first-born destroyed in the night-time by the Lord) we find Pharaoh with an army of chariots, horses, and Hors.e.m.e.n, who are finally and irreversably got rid of by being drowned in the Red Sea. In Thomas Paine's 'Essay on Dreams,'

he makes some very severe remarks upon the contemptible picture which Old Testament writers give of their G.o.d in relation to these plagues upon the Egyptians.

*Chapter xii., vv. 35 and 36. This is clearly nothing but robbery. The Egyptians simply lent because they could not avoid doing so; it was quite a Russian loan, raised by force. After saying that the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, the expression, 'And they spoiled the Egyptians,' reads with a curious meaning.

Verses 40 and 41 have been noticed on page 32 of this work. Stephen, in Acts, chap, vii., v. 6, says it was four hundred years. Dr. John Pye Smith, with all his orthodoxy, felt that there was a great difficulty to encounter, and writes as follows:--

'Many comprehend in this reckoning the time from the communication to Abraham (Genesis, chap, xv., v. 13) or his entrance into Canaan ten years earlier. This will leave only two hundred and fifteen years for the sojourn in Egypt. Yet, during that period, the population increased to what would give 603,550 _warriors_, men above twenty years old, not including the tribe of Levi (Numbers, chap, i., v. 46). Hence, it is scarcely imaginable that the whole number of the nation could be less than two millions; an increase from seventy-two, which is quite impossible. Supposing that they doubled themselves every fourteen years, the number would have been less than half a million. But if four hundred and thirty years be taken, the increase is probable. We see, also, that the males of the whole family of Kohath were 8,600 (Numbers, chap, iii., v. 28); yet Kohath had only four sons (Exodus, chap, vi., v. 18), from whom the grandsons mentioned are eight in number, none being mentioned from Hebron, who, perhaps, died childless. Also, that the father of Moses should have married the daughter of Levi, appears impossible.

Surely, then, one or more generations have fallen out from the table (Exodus, chap, vi., vv. 17 and 18).'

By this extract from Dr. John Pye Smith's 'First Lines of Christian Theology,' my reader will see the manner in which orthodox divines overcome difficulties in the text. Finding that it is impossible to receive this part as true, it is suggested that one or more generations may have fallen out of the table, and that it was impossible that the father of Moses could have married the daughter of Levi. Exodus, chap, vi., v. 20, is precise on this point; but taking Dr. Smith's explanation, how can we place reliance on a book as a revelation from G.o.d, which is admitted to be imperfect and untruthful in {54} any part?

If fallible in matter of detail, it is probably the same in matters of doctrine.

Verse 44. This is one of the verses on which the slaveholders of America rely. I shall deal with the question more fully hereafter.

*Chapter xiii., v. 2. By this and several other texts, it appears that the first-born, both of man and beast, were devoted to the Lord. It is quite clear that the beasts were slaughtered as sacrifices, but it is not so clear as to the fate of the human beings. There are special regulations for their redemption, by the payment of cattle, but the unredeemed are not mentioned. It is apparent from Leviticus, chap, xxvii, w. 27 and 28, the history of Jephtha's daughter, Judges, chap, xii., that human sacrifices were parcel of the Jewish religious rites; a portion of their prisoners seem to have been sacrificed to the Lord after each victory, as in other idolatrous nations; and in Jephtha's case, we find these remarkable words after the account of the sacrifice, 'And it was a custom in Israel.'

Verses 17 and 18. Even a devout believer might be sadly puzzled by these verses. Was G.o.d afraid lest the people should repent? and did he express that fear to his confidant, Moses, or in what manner, and to whom did G.o.d speak? Did G.o.d lead his chosen people into Egypt to avoid all wars?

if so, how comes it that we almost immediately hear of the battle with the Amalekites? (_vide_ chap. 17). G.o.d's fears seem ill-founded, for the Jews although they had a very hard fight with the Amalekites, even with G.o.d's aid, never talked of returning to Egypt, in consequence of that fight.

*Chapter xiv., vv. 24 and 25. Our authorised translation reads, 'The Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, and took off their chariot wheels that they drave them heavily.' In the Douay it is, 'The Lord, looking upon the Egyptian army through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, slew their host and overthrew the wheels of their chariots, and they were carried into the deep.'

Verse 31. The Israelites' belief in the Lord and in his servant Moses was of a very unstable nature, notwithstanding all the mighty miracles alleged to have been wrought in their presence. If the Israelites doubted Moses and disbelieved in G.o.d, with the terrible series of plagues fresh in their recollection, can it be wondered that we, to whom they are related in so incoherent a style, at this distance of time, should also have misgivings as to their truth?

*Chapter xv., v. 3. This expression, 'The Lord is a man of war,' is hardly calculated to inspire us with that love of G.o.d it is alleged to be so necessary to our salvation.

Verse 8. 'Nostrils.' This, we are told, is to be read as figurative.

How unfortunate that in a revelation words are used which are to be understood as meaning something different from the real signification.

Verse 11. Who are the G.o.ds? In the Douay the phrase is translated, 'Who is like unto thee amongst the strong, O Lord?' The Roman Catholics wished to avoid the suspicion of polytheism. {55} Verse 12. Poetic licence is used here; it was not the earth, but the water, which swallowed the Egyptians.

Chanter xvi., v. 3. If we may judge by the Israelites' own account, starvation was not one of the phases of oppression suffered by them in Egypt.

Verse 4. It is clear that the Deity of Moses was not an Omniscient Deity, for he says, 'I will rain bread from heaven for you, etc., that I may prove them whether they will walk in my law or no;' so that G.o.d did not know until he had proved them whether they would obey or disobey, and yet we are taught that he is the Infinite and Omnipotent ordainer of all things.

Verse 8. This verse must be misplaced, as Moses had not yet been informed that G.o.d intended to give the Israelites flesh. See verses 4 and 12.