The Bible: what it is Part 8

*Chapter x.x.xi., v. 15. Moses would never have joined the 'Society for Abolition of Capital Punishment,' if it had been established in his day.

This verse must have since become a dead letter, an obsolete statute which G.o.d does not enforce in the present age. But if this verse is a dead letter, how much more of the Bible is affected in the same manner?

Who is to tell which enactments may be safely disobeyed, and which carry with them the terrible penalty?

V. 17. 'He rested and was refreshed.' Although even the most faithful and pious believer must have great difficulty in attempting to contemplate that stupendous work, the creation of the universe out of nothing, yet this great difficulty sinks into utter insignificance beside the greater one of endeavouring to imagine the omnipotent and immutable Deity resting after his labour, and being refreshed.

V. 18. The expression 'finger of G.o.d' is evidently intended to be understood literally here, but the question then arises as to the nature of an infinite spirit without body, parts, or pa.s.sions (_vide_ thirty-nine articles), yet having fingers, hands, face, and back parts. Dr. Pye Smith says, on the [----------] (anthropopatheia) of the Scriptures (treatment of G.o.d as if possessing a human shape and nature)--'This is very remarkable and very extensive, but it is manifested by comparison with many other parts of the Scriptures, that the terms employed are terms of _condescending comparison_ with the acts and effects of the thus mentioned organs of the human body, to convey, especially to unpolished men a conception of those properties and actions of G.o.d, which to our feeble ideas have a resemblance, and that they were so understood. Language had not then terms for the expression of abstract conceptions.'

The Christian theologian tells me that G.o.d created man and all the circ.u.mstances that surrounded him, yet speaks of 'human incapacity, and infirmity,' and of 'the language of the Scriptures being formed in condescension thereto.'

Is it not remarkable that the all-wise Creator should have not foreseen the time when the language of his revelation should have sunken below the level of the human capacity? But it is worse than folly to put forward hypotheses as to G.o.d's condescension in using such language.

The Book itself nowhere suggests such an idea, and I ask to what mind (however 'unpolished' he may be) can the following words convey any other conception of the properties and actions of G.o.d than that of the literal reading?--

'And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts, but my face shall not be seen.' {62} Dr. Smith says that 'metaphysical or philosophical preciseness is not in the character of Scriptural composition,' yet upon our precise conception of the true meaning of that composition, hangs the penalty of eternal torment.

*Chapter x.x.xii. During the absence of Moses, the Jewish people applied to Aaron to make them other G.o.ds; they used very disrespectful language, saying 'As for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.' Aaron, who had been specially chosen by G.o.d to be his priest and Prophet, instead of reminding the people of the miracles G.o.d had just performed on their behalf, instead of reproving them for the slighting manner in which they had spoken of his brother Moses, instead even of appealing to Nadab and Abhu, and the seventy elders who had personally seen G.o.d so shortly before, and who must all have been impressed with the awful majesty of the Deity, forgetting the first and second commandment contained in chapter xx., w. 3, 4, and 5, and that their G.o.d is a jealous G.o.d, forgetting also the repet.i.tion contained in v. 23 of the same chapter, Aaron (who alone had been nominated to enter the holy of holies), without the slightest attempt at reason or remonstrance, asked the people for their golden earrings, and made a molten calf, and built an altar before it, and proclaimed a feast; and the people said, 'These be thy G.o.ds, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt.'

G.o.d was very unfortunate in his choice; his chosen people are the first to forget him, or to doubt and deny his power. The miracles performed by Moses and Aaron in Egypt--events any one of which should have been sufficient to have struck terror into the Israelites for the remainder of their lives--the interview between G.o.d and the seventy-four, only a few days before, were all forgotten. G.o.d having permitted all this to happen, informed Moses thereof, and then uses this remarkable phrase--'Let me alone that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them, and I will make of thee a great nation.' Is this the language of an infinite and immutable Deity?

Moses reasoned with G.o.d, and endeavoured to persuade him not to allow his wrath to wax hot, and ultimately the unchangeable changed his mind, and 'repented of the evil he thought to do his people.' The mode of expostulation adopted by Moses is very remarkable (see vv. 11, 12, and 13); one of the chief arguments used is not as to the merits of the case, but as to what the Egyptians will say when they hear about it.

Vv. 15 to 19. Moses, considering that he was so meek a man, soon lost his temper, and the act of throwing down the tables, betrays rather the character of a hasty petulant man.

V. 20. Gold is a metal distinguished by its extreme permanence in air and fire, by its malleability and ductility; it might have been melted by the action of fire, but could not be burnt--i.e., consumed by fire.

The Douay says that Moses 'beat it to powder;' this would be impossible, as it is so malleable, that it may be beaten into leaves {63} not more than the 280,000th part of an inch in thickness. Our version says, 'ground it to powder;' this would be a difficult task, unless Moses had other aids than we are aware of. The Golden Calf being reduced to powder, Moses strewed it upon the water, and made the Israelites drink of it. Unless a chloride of gold had been formed by the use of chlorine and nitro-muriatic acid, and of which we have no account, the gold would not be soluble in water, but would sink to the bottom, leaving the water entirely unaffected. After this Moses collected the tribe of Levi, who had been equally guilty with their brethren in the worship of the calf, and set them to slaughter every man his neighbour. In this slaughter there fell, according to our version, 3,000 men, but according to the Douay, 23,000 men were slain. Whichever version is right, it is evident that Aaron, who deserved the most punishment, escaped scot-free. The Lord's vengeance was not satisfied with even this terrible sacrifice of human life; and we are told, in the unique phraseology of the Bible, that 'the Lord plagued the people because _they made_ the calf which _Aaron_ made.'

*Chapter x.x.xiii., vv. 1 to 3, and chap, x.x.xiv., v. 11. Judea was not a land flowing with milk and honey, and the Lord did not drive out the Canaanite and the other nations mentioned (_vide_ Joshua, chap. xvii., v. 12 and 13; Judges chap, i., vv. 19, and 27 to 35; chap, ii., vv 20 to 23, and chap, iii., vv. 1 to 6).

Vv. 4, 5, and 6. Why did the Lord want the children of Israel to put off their ornaments? If in any other book than the Bible some shrewd Christians would shake their heads and say, We are afraid Moses and Aaron were not quite honest--first, they deprive the people of their gold earrings under one pretext, and now they defraud them of their remaining trinkets, under the pretence that the Lord commands them to put them off.

Vv. 9 and 10. This 'pillar of cloud' is a favourite shape, and if the whole were an imposture, it would have been an easy matter for Moses by artificial means to have raised a 'pillar of cloud' when he pleased, especially as such precautions were taken to prevent too close an examination by the Israelites.

V. 11. Apart from any question of contradiction (which has been noticed on page 59), is not this verse condemned by itself? Its purpose and meaning is to raise Moses in the estimation of its readers, and to effect this object it degrades the Deity by the very terms it uses, the conversation contained in verses 12 to 20 has all the same tendency, making it appear that Moses was G.o.d's favourite, and that G.o.d _knew his name_.

In verse 13, instead of 'show me thy way,' the Douay has 'show me thy face;' this accounts for the expression in v. 20, 'Thou canst not see my face,' but it distinctly contradicts the 'face to face' of verse 11.

V. 23 needs no comment; but I defy any man to read this verse thoughtfully, and yet be filled with awe and admiration for a Deity, who only allows his favoured Prophet to see his 'back parts.' The {64} absurdity is heightened by the remembrance of the many distinct appearances of G.o.d to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and shortly before to Moses himself, and seventy-three other persons who all saw G.o.d.

*Chapter x.x.xiv., v. 3. The same precaution to prevent detection, if imposture was really being perpetrated.

Verse 6. 'The Lord G.o.d merciful and gracious.' When? where? and how? Was it when cursing the first man and woman, and the very ground on which they stood (Genesis, chap, iii.); or when he determined to destroy both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air (Genesis, chap, vi., v. 7); or when he rained brimstone and fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis, chap, xix., v. 24); or when he slew the firstborn in every family throughout Egypt (Exodus, chap, xii., v. 29); or when he drowned all Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea (Exodus, chap, xiv., v. 27); or when he swore to have war with Amalek from generation to generation (Exodus, chap, xvii., v. 16); or when he killed Nadab and Abihu with fire (Leviticus, chap. x., v. 2); or when he repeatedly attached the penalty of death to the infringement of almost any article of the ceremonial law; or when his fire consumed the people because they complained (Numbers, chap. xi, v. 1); or when he smote them with a great plague (verse 33); or when he ordered the man to be stoned to death who was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers, chap, xv., v. 36); or when he causes the earth to swallow Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and all that appertained to them, and afterwards slew 250 more by fire, and 14,700 more by plague (Numbers, chap, xvi., vv. 31 to 35, and 49); or when he sent fiery serpents to bite his people, so that they died (Numbers, chap, xxi., v. 6); or when he sent the plague, and killed 24,000 of his people (Numbers, chap, xxv., v. 9); or when he directed the terrible slaughter of the Midiantes (Numbers, chap. 31)? I might multiply these texts, but have confined myself to the same Pentateuch in which 'G.o.d's mercy, graciousness, and long suffering' are proclaimed by himself. Any reader who wishes further to pursue the subject, is referred to a pamphlet, written in answer to Bishop Watson's 'Apology for the Bible,' and ent.i.tled 'The G.o.d of the Jews.'

Verse 14. 'The Lord, whose name is jealous, is a jealous G.o.d.' My dictionary tells me that to be jealous is to be 'suspiciously vigilant,'

'suspiciously fearful.' The omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite Deity, of what can he be jealous? Perhaps this phrase also is figurative.

Verses 29 and 30. The Douay says that after Moses had talked to the Lord, his face was horned, and that the children of Israel, seeing the horns, were afraid to come near him.

In concluding the comments on the Book of Exodus, I ask what is the result of our investigation? We have found the Book to be thoroughly worthless as a relation of actual occurrences, even when tested under the most favourable auspices; it repeatedly and in important particulars contradicts itself. It cannot be a revelation from G.o.d, because it pictures an all-wise G.o.d choosing a man with an impediment in his speech, to be a preacher, and relates that when the man {65} hesitated on account of his infirmity, G.o.d became angry at a difficulty of his own creation, and which Moses could not help. It represents a just G.o.d as seeking to kill (apparently without the slightest cause) the very man whom he had just entrusted with the important mission of releasing his chosen people from bondage; it speaks of an invisible G.o.d as becoming visible; of an immutable G.o.d as being jealous; of a loving G.o.d declaring war against unborn generations of his own creatures; of a just G.o.d as punishing the people for following (the teachings of the priest whom he had appointed, and yet allowing the criminal priest not only to escape unpunished, but actually rewarded for his misconduct.) It pictures a merciful and good G.o.d as tormenting and murdering the Egyptians, solely for the purpose of convincing the Jews that he is really the Lord G.o.d of Israel, and afterwards plagueing and slaughtering those _very_ Israelites, because all the former cruelties practised on their neighbours had not produced sufficient convincing effect on them.

It teaches monotheism in one verse, and polytheism in another.

It ought not to be used as an educational book amongst the children of _men_, because it contains doctrines and precepts only fitted for the offspring of _tyrants_ and _slaves_. It teaches that children may be born slaves, and that their parents may sell them as slaves, and it places money at a higher value than life, virtue, honour, or liberty.

BOOK III. LEVITICUS

In dealing with the laws of the Jews, I feel compelled to avoid very many texts on account of their disgusting nature; but generally I may remark that it is evident the Jews must have been an ignorant, viciously-inclined, unintellectual, and thoroughly-depraved people, or such laws would never have been required. If G.o.d chose the best people on the earth, the state of the whole of the human family must have been very bad indeed. My reason for avoiding the above-mentioned cla.s.s of texts is twofold; first, although I think them fair matter for comment, I have no wish to offend or insult any reader who, from his or her mode of education, has been taught to regard such subjects as unfit for discussion; second, I am not quite certain that the 'Society for Suppression of Vice,' or some kindred society, may not be induced to again attack works of this cla.s.s, in which case I have no wish to afford the counsel for the prosecution an opportunity of declaiming against my obscene style, but wish, if possible, to compel my most severe critics to admit that I have been more choice in my phraseology than the writers of the Book they defend.

*Chapter, v. 3. The Douay reads--'If his offering be a holocaust, and of the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish at the door of the testimony _to make the Lord favourable to him_.' It will be perceived that the words italicised are not contained in, our version at all.

The holocaust, or whole burnt offering, is so called because the whole victim was consumed with fire, and ascended, as we are told in verse 9, 'with a sweet savour to the Lord.' What elevated conceptions {66} of the Deity are here conveyed; an infinite G.o.d, whose favour is granted to the man who burns the most sheep or oxen; a just and immutable G.o.d, to whom the sweet savour of roast mutton is an acceptable expiatory equivalent on behalf of a murderer, a robber, or other criminal.

*Chapter ii., vv. 3 and 10. The priests are not neglected in this revelation.

Verse 13. Without salt the sacrifice would be incomplete. Query. Was not the salt rather required by the priests than by G.o.d? It is easy to understand why a man wishes for salt to season his meat, but it is not so easy to comprehend the same requisition on the part of a G.o.d.

*Chapter vi., v. 13. This fire must have been out several times, especially since the last conquest of Jerusalem. Where is it burning at the present time? By reference to chap, ix., v. 24, and chap, x., vv. 1 and 2, it would seem that this fire came from G.o.d himself.

*Chapter vii., vv. 23 to 27. Those are cruel and useless laws. The punishment of death is strangely disproportioned to the offence; and unless the law has become obsolete, we must wonder that G.o.d allows the manufacturers and consumers of articles of food, made from the blood and fat of animals, to escape unpunished in the present day.

*Chapter xi. It is difficult to conceive the reason why, in the list of articles fit for food, eels should be forbidden as having no scales, and cla.s.sed as unclean with hares and swans, while locusts, gra.s.shoppers, and beetles are permitted. The Douay gives entirely different names to some of the prohibited animals, mentioning, amongst others, the griffin, an animal whose existence is much doubted. No naturalist has ever yet described it to us, it is only mentioned in a few old fables.

*Chapter xvi., vv. 21 and 22. 'And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away, by the hand of a fit man, into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inherited, and he shall let go the goat into the wilderness.' Is not this supremely ridiculous? and the absurdity is only heightened by the inutility, for I do not find that the Israelites were ever let off from any punishment by reason of the scapegoat. The doctrine of the scapegoat has gained considerably of late; and it is the custom when an outcry is raised against the actors in any public grievance, to offer up some person (who generally is innocent of all partic.i.p.ation in the offence) as a scapegoat.

'The Egyptians had a similar custom, as we learn from Herodotus, Book 2, chap. 39, who relates it in these words:--

'"After they have killed the goat, they cut off its head, but they flay the animal's body, after which, having p.r.o.nounced many imprecations on the head, those who have a market and Grecian merchants dwelling among them, carry it thither and sell it to them; but those who have no Grecian residents to sell it to, throw the head into the fire, p.r.o.nouncing over it the following imprecations:--'If any evil is about to befall either those that now sacrifice, or Egypt in general, may it be averted on this head!'" {67} 'The two customs, though not perfectly the same, are so far similar that the one appears to have been derived from the other. The import of both is certainly the same; for in both the goat is made use of as a subst.i.tute to draw away calamity from the party sacrificing; in the one case being sent into the wilderness, and in the other consumed by fire.'

*Chapter xvii., vv. 3 and 4. The absurdity of this command will be apparent upon the slightest examination. If the Jews were as numerous as is represented when in Egypt, and continued to increase and multiply in the same ratio, they would have filled a very large portion of the earth's surface; but even allowing for biblical exaggeration, it would have been impossible for a people, amounting to several hundreds of thousands, to have all slaughtered their cattle at one spot (the door of the Tabernacle); and if they had done so, judging from the appearance and odour of modern slaughterhouses, I can scarcely think that the 'holiest of holies' would have been at the same time 'the sweetest of sweets.' It would have been still more impossible for each individual to have brought (perhaps from a distance of several miles) each an ox, lamb, or goat killed. It is not at all probable, in a nation so ignorant as the Jews, that the people possessed carts and waggons for the purpose of transporting the dead cattle to and fro, and if they had, the waste of labour would have been enormous. The severe penalty of death is all that is required to make this essentially one of 'G.o.d's laws.' What would be said if all the slaughtered cattle in England were, by Act of Parliament, compelled, under penalty of death, to be brought to the door of St. Paul's Cathedral to have the fat and blood taken from them?

Verse 7, chap, xix., w. 26 and 31, chap, xx., vv. 6 and 27. What are devils? If G.o.d is the Creator of all things, did he create devils? If so, it is scarcely just to punish us for falling victims to devils, whom G.o.d must have made sufficiently powerful to tempt us to the commission of crime. If otherwise, are devils independent existences, because in that case the Deity is not omnipotent. They are neither; devils, angels, G.o.ds, familiar spirits and demons, all stand in the same mythological position. They belong to the past, not to the present. They belong to the age of ignorance, not of inquiry. We find in such verses as these the clue to the superst.i.tious fear with which the inhabitants of some little villages still regard certain old men and women; we find in them also the clue to the persecutions for witchcraft in the reign of King James, etc. Strong objections have been urged against the doctrine of devils, demons, and familiar spirits. It is said by Theists that it is contrary to all natural conceptions of the benevolence and mercy of the Deity; that he should have created, and should sustain in existence, beings of the highest intellectual order to be the subjects of eternal misery, not only to themselves, but to all humanity. It is further urged that the doctrine detracts from the power of G.o.d by holding forth an almost omnipotent chief of a legion of powerful and mischievous devils, all bent on the destruction of mankind. It is further, and very reasonably, urged that the Jews, {68} especially alter their connection with the Chaldean and Persian nations, had imbibed very extended, and, at the same time, very puerile ideas with regard to the operations of both good and bad spirits. The properties of plants, of mineral waters, of minerals, of certain climatic conditions, the existence of any remarkable phenomena, the insanity of men, or animals, were all attributed to the presence and influence of good and bad spirits. Sound science has exploded these errors; and why should not the whole ma.s.s of demonology be rejected as exploded also (_vide_ Farmer on the 'Demoniacs,' and Pye Smith's 'Christian Theology')?

*Chapter xxvi. It is worthy of notice that in this chapter, which professes

to describe the reward for obedience to G.o.d's laws, and the punishment for disobedience, no reference whatever is made to a future state.

The rewards are temporal--viz., good harvests, and easy victory over enemies, etc. The punishments are also temporal--viz., painful defeat in battle, sterile land, captivity, starvation, etc Not a word about the soul, or about heaven, or h.e.l.l; yet a chapter like this seems a place in which, if such a doctrine had been held by the writer, we should expect to find some traces of it; temporal punishment of a very severe kind is threatened, but nothing occurs wnich can in any way lead us to a spiritual punishment; death seems to be the highest penalty, and the author of the Pentateuch did not contemplate the possibility of tormenting men after they were dead--this was reserved for more enlightened ages.

*Chapter xxvii., vv. 28 and 29, has been noticed on page 54.

Verses 30 to 33. The clergy are very zealous in conserving their claims under these verses (which of course apply to the whole world). They act as the Lord's representatives, and take the Lord's share to themselves.

The Book of Leviticus only claims our attention under two phases--first, as a revelation from G.o.d: and second, as a code of laws. It cannot be a revelation from an immutable G.o.d, because it alleges that G.o.d is influenced in his conduct by particular kinds of sacrifice: it cannot be a revelation from an all-wise and just G.o.d, because it contains trifling and absurd commands enforced by severe penalties; it cannot be a revelation from an all-powerful and infinitely good Creator, because it treats of devils and bad spirits, either having independent or permitted power to commit evil. As a code of laws, it is utterly inapplicable to the present state of society; and, in fact, seems mainly intended to support and benefit the priests (placing the government in their hands), but is utterly without utility as regards the people, the punishments are mostly very disproportionate, and for breaches of the ceremonial law unnecessarily severe. {69}

BOOK IV. NUMBERS

*Chapter i., v. 14, chap, ii., v. 14. In one we find Eliasaph the son of Reul, in the other Eliasaph the son of Deuel. In chap. vii., vv. 42 and 47, and in chap, x., v. 20, it is also Eliasaph son of Deuel. Which is right?