The Bible: what it is Part 7

Verse 15. The children of Israel did not call the bread from heaven manna, but they said when they saw it, [------] (Man eua), i.e., What is this?

Verses 20 to 24. By these verses it appears that while the manna invariably putrified if kept till the second day on six days of the week, yet, if the second day happened to be the seventh, then no putrefaction took place. This corresponds with what I have heard as to some Scotch cities, in which the Sabbath is so strictly observed, that if salts or jalap happened to be taken as medicine on Sat.u.r.day night, they refused to work during the whole of Sunday.

Verse 35 has been noticed on page 6.

Verse 36 must have been written when the omer had become obsolete as a measure amongst the Jews, or the verse would be unnecessary.

*Chapter xvii., w. 5 and 6. This striking the rock for water is a miracle; a devout man may believe in it; I confess I do not understand the process, although I admit it would be very useful in the desert, if practicable.

Verses 9 to 13. Can any man believe that if Napoleon had stood on an eminence near the scene at Waterloo, and had held up his hand, this would have influenced the success of either party? Why should a man believe that in relation to Moses to which he would refuse credence in the present day? and if G.o.d was really on the side of the Israelites, why did he allow his aid to depend upon whether Moses could hold up his hand?

Verses 14 and 16. Why was Amalek to be so punished? G.o.d the Creator must have created both Amalekites and Israelites, yet he favours the latter and declares war against the former from generation to generation. What a strange idea to convey in relation to an Omnipotent Deity--strife between the Infinite G.o.d and his weak and puny creature. By the expression 'the Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation,' true believers may learn that G.o.d predetermined to make war upon unborn generations of Amalekites, whom he created for the purpose of exterminating.

*Chapter xviii., vv. 1 to 6. Some part of the previous history must {56} be lost, as we have no account of Moses sending his wife back; on the contrary, in chap, iv., v. 20, we are told that he took both her and his two sons into Egypt.

Jethro gave his son-in-law very sensible advice, and the only matter of surprise is that Moses listened to it. Usually, priests of different religions snarl at one another like angry, half-fed curs, growling over a solitary bone, and if a priest of one sect (out of the ordinary course) offered good advice to another sect, it would probably be treated with neglect and contempt.

*Chapter xix., w. 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 19. In these verses we have an account of the meeting of Moses and G.o.d. If this had been in the book of Mormon or in the Koran, some Christian critic would have at once exclaimed, 'Why, this is all imposture! for these reasons--the man who led the people, and who wished to pretend that he was to have an interview with G.o.d, took very great pains to keep the people at a sufficient distance to prevent detection of his schemes; the trumpet sounding, the darkness, the thunder and lightning, are so many scenic appliances to give effect to the delusion. Perhaps the mount was a volcanic one, in which case the addition of the trumpet soundings completed the scene; and the secrecy observed as to all the transactions on the mount protected the man from exposure. How careful are the directions given to prevent any inquisitive straggler from getting sufficiently near to make a fatal discovery! But no man in his senses will believe that G.o.d blew a trumpet, or caused a trumpet to be blown, to announce his coming, and that he descended upon Sinai surrounded by fire and smoke. In all fabulous relations we find such things, but it is absurd to suppose that this refers to an Almighty and Infinite Deity. We are told in verse 20, 'The Lord came down upon Mount Sinai on the top of the mount, and the Lord called Moses up to the top of the mount, and Moses went up.' Can you require stronger evidence of the mythological character of your book? Your Omnipresent and Infinite Deity is pictured as standing on the top of a mountain, and calling to Moses, who was down below, to come up to him.

Verse 15. This is one of the verses which no amount of commentary can make intelligible: 'Come not at your wives.' Why not?

*Chapter xx. The second verse of this chapter begins in the first person, 'I am the Lord,' and continues in the first person to verse 6, where it merges into the third person. Verse 5 is contradicted by Ezekiel, chap, xviii., v. 20, 2 Kings, chap, xiv., v. 6, and Deuteronomy, chap, xxiv., v. 16. This is as positive and distinct a specimen of contradiction as can be found anywhere. In the third commandment we are told that G.o.d is a jealous G.o.d, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. In the other three texts, we are told that the child shall not be put to death for the father, but every man for his own sin. By the following contrast of the Fourth Commandment, as given in the second and fifth books of the Pentateuch, biblical students may judge how far they may rely on the reasons for closing the museums, mechanics' {57} inst.i.tutes and crystal palaces, and opening churches, chapels, and gin palaces on the seventh day, Chap. xx., vv. 8, 9, 10, 11.

8.--Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.

9.--Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10.--But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy G.o.d: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates:

11. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it.

DEUT. Chap, v., w. 12, 13, 14, 15.

12.--Keep the Sabbath-day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy G.o.d hath commanded thee.

13.--Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:

14.--But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy G.o.d: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine a.s.s, nor any of thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.

15.--And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy G.o.d brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy G.o.d commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day.

Which is the correct reason for sanctifying the Sabbath-day?

Was it because the Lord rested, or because the Lord brought the Israelites out of Egypt on that day? The true believer will devoutly answer, 'The Lord only knows.'

*Chapter xxi., vv. 2 to 6. Leviticus, chap, xxv., vv. 44 to 46. In these verses we find slavery acknowledged, and its continuance provided for by the law of G.o.d. The offering a slave his liberty on condition that he abandoned his wife whom he loved, and his children who are of his flesh and blood, is a piece of refined cruelty. Perhaps G.o.d did not know that a slave was capable of love, perhaps G.o.d was not aware that the slave in his hovel may have as true and as warm an affection for his wife and children as the king in his palace, or the n.o.ble in his fine mansion. Is a slave a man with a man's pa.s.sions and feelings, or is he an inferior animal? If the Bible is to be examined before replying to the question, and if we are to govern our mode of answering by the words we find there, it ceases to be a matter for wonder that there are slave States in Christian countries.

It is a beautiful theory this, and worthy of a place in a revelation from an all-wise and all-good G.o.d--i. e., that a man may be a religious man and yet keep his brother and sister as male and female slaves, breeding and begetting other slaves. How did this slavery originate?

before the flood slaves are not mentioned. If G.o.d made all men originally free, how did any become slaves? {58} Verse 6 is contradicted in Leviticus, chap, xxv., w. 39 to 42.

Verses 7 to 11. These verses contain a provision for the sale by a man of his own daughter. And for what purpose? Our translators have endeavoured to hide the real meaning of the text. Verse 7 reads, 'And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the _men servants_ do.'

In the Douay it is, 'If a man sell his daughter to be a servant, she shall not go out as _bondwomen_ are wont to go out.'

The 8th verse in our translation reads--'If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed to sell her to a strange nation; he shall have no power seeing _he hath dealt deceitfully with her_.' In the Douay, 'If she displease the eyes of her master to whom she was delivered, he shall let her go, but he shall have no power to sell her to a foreign nation _if he despise her?_ In the Breeches Bible the whole truth is revealed, for we find the last words of the 8th verse translated, '_seeing he hath deflowered her_.'

Lest there should be a mistake, I will further contrast the translation of verse 10. In our version it is, 'If he take him another _wife_ her food, her raiment, and her _duty of marriage_ he shall not diminish.'

In the Douay, 'If he take another wife for him, he shall provide her a marriage, and raiment, neither shall he refuse the _price of her chast.i.ty_.'

In the Breeches Bible, 'If he take him another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her raiment, and _recompense of her virginity?_

Can any man doubt as to the real meaning of these verses? Is it not clear and beyond contradiction that here is a law professedly from a G.o.d of truth and purity, rendering it lawful for a man to prost.i.tute his own daughter. Our translators have cleverly glossed the text, partially hiding its disgusting meaning, but still enough was left to excite suspicion. I have investigated it, and now lay the result before you, and ask you one and all is this the Book from which you let your little girls read, and from which you expect them to acquire that knowledge which shall render them happy and virtuous?

I have already remarked upon the recognition of slavery by G.o.d. We have seen how Ishmael was not allowed to partic.i.p.ate in the promised land, because he was born a slave. But it remained for us to read more of this Bible before we discovered that a just G.o.d, who is no respector of persons, who is the father of us all, who loves the whole world, and who looks alike upon king and peasant, could make such a regulation as the following:--

Verses 20 and 21. 'And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished.

Notwithstanding, if he continue for a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.' We are here told that if one of G.o.d's children, whom G.o.d caused to be born free, kills another of G.o.d's children, whom G.o.d has caused to be born a slave, the murderer shall escape punishment, if (as the Douay quaintly expresses it) the party remain alive a day or two after the infliction of the punishment, which was the primary cause of death. Why is this mercy? is it because {59} G.o.d so loves all the world that he does not wish to shed the blood of any man? No: but because the slave killed is the murderer's money. He (the murderer) bought and paid for that slave with bright gold and the power of gold is recognised even in the kingdom of G.o.d. To-day

the Society for Suppression of Cruelty to Animals would prosecute and obtain the committal to prison of any man, who, on such prosecution, should be found guilty of beating his horse or his dog, so that it died on the second or third day. It would be no defence to urge on the part of the prisoner that he had paid for the ill-used animal. The whole auditory would hiss the advocate who raised such a defence. But in a trial at the last day before the Supreme Judge, when a 'Legree' is accused of the murder of an 'Uncle Tom,' may raise a valid defence with the words, 'He was my money.' The power of gold will open the gates of heaven to the murderer, who can look complacently down into h.e.l.l upon the murderers who had no money.

*Chapter xxii., v. ll. Here oaths are commanded; in Matthew, chap. v., w. 34 to 37, and James, chap, v., v. 12, they are forbidden.

Verse 18. 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.' In the Douay, 'Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.' Can we wonder that our criminal courts occasionally reveal a scene of life in which we see one man parting with his hard-earned pence to propitiate another man, whom he believes to possess some supernatural power? It is customary on such occasions, for the presiding magistrate to deplore the ignorance of the labouring cla.s.ses, and to exclaim against the folly of believing in witches and wizards, yet he swears the complainant on the Bible, containing this verse, and would refuse to receive his evidence, if, after hearing the magistrate's opinion on the folly of believing in witchcraft, he should happen to remark, 'Then I cannot believe in the Bible.'

Verses 20 and 28, and chap, xxiii., v. 13. Who and what are these G.o.ds, and why these commands? The sole end of this religion is the wors.h.i.+p of one G.o.d, yet here are other G.o.ds referred to. If I sacrifice to them, I hazard destruction, and if I revile them, I shall fare no better. As for cursing the ruler of my people, I am one of those who deem curses to be vain words, which a man had far better leave unuttered; if the ruler does wrong, let him rule no longer, but let the people place another in his stead.

*Chapter xxiv., vv. 9 to 14, are contradicted in chap, x.x.xiii., v.

20, John, chap, i., v. 18, 1st Epistle of John, chap, iv., v. 12, 1st Epistle to Timothy, chap, i., v. 17, Colossians, chap, i. vv. 15. It cannot be urged that this is figurative, because the evident intention is to give a literal account of seventy-four persons going up to see G.o.d. To what place they went up is not clear, it was not the mount, or but a short distance on it, for Moses and Joshua left them, and went up from them into the mount.

In the Hindoo mythology we shall find several instances of G.o.ds, under whose feet paved work may be seen; but these G.o.ds are neither omnipotent, infinite, nor omniscient. All enlightened Christians admit {60} that the whole list of Indian deities is fabulous, and while they gaze on the curious pictures given in the 'Asiatic Researches,' and other works, they feel convinced of the superiority of their own system, which is free from such ridiculous absurdities. But how do these enlightened Christians deal with this chapter, which tells them their 'invisible' G.o.d was seen by seventy-four men in a fiery mount, with as it were, a paved work under his feet?

Dr. John Pye Smith, never at a loss, easily reconciles these apparent discrepancies by a.s.serting that they refer to the different persons of the Father and the Messiah, but this is only 'confusion worse confounded,' for it is quite clear that it was not the Messiah who is referred to, either here or in the many other texts speaking of the appearance of the Lord to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it is also clear that Jesus was not invisible; so we are left without aid from the Reverend Dr.'s comment, and must still wonder how an 'invisible' G.o.d ever appeared to anybody.

*Chapter xxv., v. 30. Here is an absurd and useless regulation. G.o.d could not and did not eat this bread.

Verse 40. What patterns were these, and is not Moses supposed to be in the mount when these words were spoken? This verse either refers to a previous interview, of which we have no account, or else this did not take place in the mount at all.

*Chapter xxviii., w. 40, 41, and 42. Can anything be more puerile than to imagine the G.o.d of the universe giving directions for the particular description of girdle, bonnet, and breeches to be worn by some insignificant puny creatures, crawling on the outside of a little planet called the earth?

*Chapter xxix., v. 44. At the very time that G.o.d was thus intimating that he would sanctify Aaron, the latter must have been engaged in the manufacture of the calf. Did G.o.d know this? If he did, it is hard to understand how he chose an idolator for his priest. If otherwise, G.o.d is not omniscient. The family of Levi, who were so severely cursed by Jacob, seem the most favoured by Jacob's G.o.d.

*Chapter x.x.x., v. 6. It is not quite clear where this altar was to be placed; but from the text it appears to have been placed in the 'holiest of holies,' which creates a doubt as to how an altar in daily use could be situate in a place only entered once a year. The text is, however, rather complex in its description, and I may be mistaken in my reading.

Verse 15. The words 'when they gave an offering unto the Lord to make atonement for your souls,' are totally omitted in the Douay version.

Verses 22 to 38. G.o.d, who is a G.o.d of love and full of mercy and loving kindness, here ordains that every man who shall manufacture a particular kind of scented pomatum, shall be put to death. Christian Theist, you tell me that yours is the 'eternal, immortal, and only wise G.o.d' (_vide_ 1st Timothy, chap, i., v. 17)--do you in truth believe that he would order me to be utterly cut off because I might perhaps unconsciously make a scented ointment of a particular character? Do {61} you believe if I take a certain description of perfumed pomatum, and 'smell thereto,' previous to rubbing some on the hair of my head, that I shall be put to death? Perhaps these enactments were only meant for the Jews, who seem to have required some strange laws; if so, it is a pity G.o.d has allowed the Book to come to us in its present state, as we find it hard to conceive (without any fact to reason upon) that one verse is intended only for the Jews, and the following one intended for the whole world.