← catalogue

The Bible Unveiled

by M. M. Mangasarian · English · Gutenberg #45475 · 457,001 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Bible Unveiled
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Bible Unveiled

Author: M. M. Mangasarian


        
Release date: April 24, 2014 [eBook #45475]
                Most recently updated: October 24, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45475

Credits: Produced by David Widger from page images generously
        provided by Google Books


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BIBLE UNVEILED ***

THE BIBLE UNVEILED

By M. M. Mangasarian


1911


When I seriously believe a thing, I say so in a few words, leaving the
reader to determine what my belief is worth. But I do not choose
to temper down every expression of personal opinion into courteous
generalities. Let us learn to speak plainly and intelligibly first, and,
if it may be, gracefully afterwards.--John Ruskin.

|TO make it possible for a man to be as honest in his religion as he
would like to be in his business; to make him as unafraid in church as
he aims to be anywhere else, and to help make him as impatient of a lie
on Sunday as he is on any other day of the week, is the object of these
studies on the bible. I wish to be able to kindle in the breast of every
free citizen of this free country the love of truth, irrespective of
whether it helps or hurts; I wish to shame cowardice and cant out of
every man and woman who speaks the English language.




CONTENTS

An Extraordinary Book

A Word with the Reader—Protestant and Catholic

A Word with the Jews


PART I.

I. The Neglected Book

What Makes a Book Inspired?

The Sects and Their Bibles

Catholic and Protestant Bibles

Catholics Make Their Own Bible


PART II.

I. The Tercentenary of the English Bible

Some Lay Defenders of the Bible—Bryan's Challenge

Bryan's Defense of the Bible

II. Roosevelt on the Bible

III. "Let Them Produce It"

What Is the Best Thing That Can Be Said in Favor of the Bible?

IV. How to Test a Book

Speak According to Knowledge


PART III.

I. The First Chapter of the Bible

The First Verse of the Bible

Theologians Discover That Six Days Means Six Periods

The Great Tragedy

II. Taboo and Totem.

The Totem

III. The Bible and Magic

The Unbelievable in the Bible

IV. The Strangest Story in the Bible


PART IV.

I. God and His Book

The Deity Demands Human Flesh

II. The Portrait of God in the Bible

A Bible Saint

III. The Bible and Judaism

IV. Bible and Talmud

V. The Masterpiece of the Bible—Solomon's Temple


PART V.

Contradictions in the Bible

Serious Discrepancies in the Story of Jesus

One Writer Makes Jesus Affirm What Another Made Him Deny


PART VI.

I. What Was The Bible Meant to Teach?

II. The Bible and Religion

III. Does the Bible Teach Morality?

IV. Righteousness in the Bible

V. The Ten Commandments

VI. The Commandments Broken

VII. Thou Shalt Despise Women

VIII. The Sermon on the Mount

IX. The Parables of Jesus


PART VII.

I. A Better Bible

Conclusion. The Book of God and the Book of Man




An Extraordinary Book

|A BOOK which claims infallibility; which aspires to absolute authority
over mind and body; which demands unconditional surrender to all its
pretensions upon penalty of eternal damnation, is an extraordinary book
and should, therefore, be subjected to extraordinary tests.

Neither Christian priests nor Jewish rabbis approve of applying to the
bible the same tests by which _other_ books are tried.

Why?

Because it will help the bible?

It can not be that.

Because it might _hurt_ the bible?

We can think of no other reason.

But why devote so much space and time to the discussion of a book in
which the educated world no longer believes? Why not take up issues that
are more alive and more useful? I am of the opinion that the people who
leave the bible alone do so, not because they think the book has ceased
to hurt, but because they are still afraid of it, or its clientèle. The
generality of reformers would rather fight giants than the great _paper_
idol of the churches--because it is _safer_.

Clergymen with liberal tendencies seek to dull the edge of all criticism
against the bible by admitting in advance the conclusions of scholarship
in reference to it, but still pretending to find a unique use for the
book as "literature." Indeed! And since when has the bible, from being a
divine revelation, fallen to the level of mere letters? If the bible is
mere literature, would the mails accept it in its present form? Would it
be tolerated in the homes of the people? And why should there be a paid
army of men in the service of a book which is only literature? Why so
many priests and rabbis to do its bidding, and why should so many costly
and untaxed temples and cathedrals be built for a book which is no more
than any other literature? Why should missionaries be maintained to push
the sale of this one book if it is nothing but literature? Why is the
world broken up into sects and creeds without number in the name of this
literature? Peculiar literature, this!

_The veil lifted!_ I am not going to give new names to the bible, or
find new _hidden_ meanings in it. That is not my profession. Occultism,
which enables a reader to find in any book whatever he is seeking, has
never commanded my respect. By lifting the veil, I mean a very simple
thing--showing up the bible.

All idols are veiled. The _veil_ is the idol. Uncovered, they scare
nobody. I shall try to do to the great idol of Christendom what the sun
does to the earth--coax it into the light.




A Word with the Reader--Protestant and Catholic

|LET me assure the prospective Catholic and Protestant readers of this
volume that I do not harbor a single feeling toward them which is not
of the kindest and the most respectful. I have no quarrel whatever with
individuals, or with parties. It is altogether foreign to my nature to
take pleasure in giving pain to others. If the truth gives pain, it is
not the fault of the teacher, nor of the reader who hears it for
the first time, but of error, which stabs and stings before it will
surrender its victims.

Having been a Christian believer myself, I have the warmest sympathy for
all who still wear the yoke of superaturalism. But I have no pity for
error. I will not consult its pleasure. I will not spare it. Before any
of my readers condemn me for speaking openly, and without reservation,
I trust they will think of something else I could have said about the
bible which would have been better than the truth. And as I am going to
make the bible speak for itself, I am sure no one will charge me with
misrepresenting the facts.

But I have no business to be concerned about either pleasing or
displeasing anybody. I am going to tell the truth, even if it hurts. If
telling the truth hurts me, it is I, and not the truth, that has to get
out of the way; if it hurts _you_, it is you, and not the truth, that
has to be sacrificed.

Not "truth for truth's sake," but "truth for humanity's sake," is the
better motto, argue certain teachers; but is there a better way of
serving humanity than through truth? Even as "Art for art's sake" will
give humanity the highest art, "Truth for truth's sake" will give to the
world the only bread it can live by.




A Word with the Jews

|AS the bible is the work of Jewish authors, and as I say quite a little
about Jews and Judaism in this book, I wish to take the pains to explain
my position in advance. Rationalism is much indebted to the educated
Jew. Even more is the Jew indebted to Rationalism. The only miracle
in the history of Israel was performed by Rationalism. All the bible
miracles are nothing in comparison. Rationalism has saved the Jew from
his greatest enemy--the bible. It is to the great credit of the Jew that
he has survived his "holy" book. No people have suffered more from it
than the chosen people. The bible has made the Jew a wanderer and an
alien in every country. When thinking of the martyrdom of this race
through the centuries, the poet Heine exclaimed: "Judaism is not a
religion; Judaism is a misfortune." * The same poet congratulates
himself upon the hastening departure of Jehovah: "It is the old Jehovah
himself that is preparing for death. Hear ye not the bells resounding?
Kneel down, they are bringing the sacraments to a dying God."

     * Heine: _Philosophy and Religion in Germany._

The great strides which the modern Jew has made in culture as well as in
commerce, he owes to his emancipation from the influence of the bible.
The more he disobeys the bible the more universal he becomes in his
sympathies and tastes. With the crushing load of the bible taken off his
shoulders, the Jew is swift in responding to the most beneficent
influences of environment. Away from Judaism lies the salvation of the
Jew. It was in Europe and America, among the Gentiles, and not in
Palestine, that the Jew discovered himself. Not until he turned his back
upon Jehovah and his book did the Jew leap forth to conquer in art, in
literature, in science, and in all the graces that help to make genius
and virtue attractive. I do not say that all persecution and prejudice
will end when Jew and Christian cease to follow the teachings of the
bible, but surely the most formidable obstacles to the fraternization of
the races shall be removed. It is a service to humanity to try to free
the Jew from the rabbinical yoke, and the Christian from that of the
priest. The rabbi is as much a schismatic as the priest. The parent of
both is the bible.

Once for all, I beg the readers of this book to know that I do not
believe for a moment that the Jews ever taught the absurdities, or
practiced the atrocities, with which the bible credits them. I do
not believe they ever started on an expedition to murder babes and
sucklings, or to capture girls for their harems, for which acts the
bible praises them. Like the Catholics and the Protestants, the Jews,
inspired by these same scriptures, have committed many follies through
the centuries, but I am positive in my own mind that the terrible Old
Testament picture of the Jew is a libel against humanity, as well as
against the Jews.

Not until the Jew has completely parted with bible and Talmud; not until
he has completely surrendered to Rationalism in mind and _body_--for as
long as he practices the Abrahamic rite upon his children as a religious
duty he will continue to be an alien in every land--will the Jew end his
wanderings in the wilderness and enter the land of promise.

The Messiah of the Jew, as well as of the Christian, is come. It is
Rationalism. And what is Rationalism? The authority of Reason.




PART I.




I. The Neglected Book

|THE bible is a sort of national pet in this country. We are taught from
the cradle to revere, and almost worship it. In time, the bible comes to
be as near and dear to us as our own mothers. When anybody praises it,
we applaud him; when anybody criticizes it, we feel toward him as we
would toward one who has betrayed his country, or insulted the national
flag.

When, recently, President Taft praised the bible by saying that "Our
laws, our literature and our social life owe whatever excellence they
possess largely to the influence of this, our chief classic," he was, I
am sure, quite sincere. But, evidently, all he knows about the bible is
what was taught him in the nursery, the Sunday-school, or the church.
The majority of people who exalt the bible above all other books have
not studied the book--not even read it, except a chapter here and a
passage there. If the bible had been a smaller book, people would have
been more familiar with its contents, but being a book of ponderous
size, the generality of people have only a _dilettante_ acquaintance
with its contents. Really, the size of the book has been its best
protection. There is scarcely any other book which is more reverenced,
and less known, than the bible.

The bible societies, however, claim that for long centuries the bible
has been the best seller. About twenty million copies a year have been
disposed of during the past three hundred years. But selling a book, and
getting it read, are not the same thing. There are reasons which explain
the enormous traffic in bibles. A great deal of money is expended every
year to push its sale. Great legacies are devoted to the translation and
dissemination of the bible in every country. Powerful corporations
exist all over Christendom to introduce the bible into new territories.
Besides, the book is sold at a nominal price, often below cost, which is
made possible by large endowments and legacies.

Another reason which explains the vogue of the bible is the fact that it
is protected against all competition. The king is behind the book; the
press is behind it; and a halo of divinity is thrown about it to scare
people from examining their own holy book with the same freedom that
they examine the holy books of other countries. What other book has ever
received the patronage which the bible commands, even to-day? And what
would have been the fate of the bible had no more been done for it than
has been done for Shakespeare, for example? Not until all artificial
helps and props have been removed, will we be in a position to say
whether the bible sells on its own merits, or whether it is indebted for
its popularity to special privilege.

But, as already intimated, notwithstanding these enormous sales, the
bible is read so little by the present generation that it may well be
called _The Neglected Book_. To prove this, we are not going to quote
Rationalists, but clergymen. The complaint from every pulpit is that the
bible is being ignored by the people more and more every day. The Rev.
Lyman Abbott read, at one of his lectures, a chapter from the bible,
without, however, mentioning the name of the book to his hearers. He was
addressing an _élite_ audience; on the platform were judges, bankers and
the "first citizens" of the town. At the conclusion of his lecture two
of the gentlemen on the platform, one of them a judge, asked him for the
name of the book he had read from. Lyman Abbott himself tells this and
other similar stories to show how ignorant the American public is of
the contents of the book they venerate so piously and gush over so
spectacularly.

The very people, however, who are so ignorant of the bible, would be the
first to throw up their hands in horror should the least criticism be
directed against its contents. The same complaint, namely, that people
are neglecting the study of the bible, is made by other clergymen. In
schools and colleges, even, great ignorance has been discovered among
the pupils about the bible. Professor Hamilton reports that, in visiting
certain schools in New York, he found among pupils preparing for
college, and nearly of an age for entrance, whole classes that could not
answer the easiest questions about the contents of the bible.

It is my opinion that the complaining clergymen themselves are not so
well acquainted with the bible as they should be. Of course, no harm
is done either to science or ethics by this general ignorance of the
stories in the bible; personally, I am pleased at the indifference of
the public to a collection of writings which has to be labeled "holy" to
command respect.

The above facts are quoted only to prove that, despite its enormous
sales, the bible is a stranger in the home, the school, the study, the
shop, and in all the assemblies of the people. But the less some people
are acquainted with the bible, the more they seem to believe in
it. Indeed, ignorance of the bible is indispensable to faith in its
inspiration. Moreover, it is this ignorant veneration which makes it
dangerous for any one to read and tell the truth about it. Formerly,
when the church had the power, such a man was either hacked to pieces,
or burned to cinders; to-day, even, he is persecuted as much as public
opinion will permit. It is a matter of history that in the name of
this Jewish-Christian volume, which people do not read and are but
superficially acquainted with, nearly a hundred millions of lives have
been destroyed in Europe alone. Could anything be more appalling? In
modern times, the church can no longer do to the unbelievers in the
bible what it did to them for over seventeen hundred years, but it does
to them as much as public sentiment will allow.

The reader will be interested in examining with me the book in the
defense of which, I regret to say, nearly every imaginable crime has
been committed. It gives me pain to say this, but who can hide the
truth? Moreover, my sole purpose in telling the plain truth is not to
offend, or give pain, but to encourage everybody to approach the book
without fear. I am not going to praise the bible; but I am not going to
denounce it either; I am going to explain it.

It is my desire not so much to talk about the bible--when, and where,
and by whom, it was compiled; how it was lost and discovered; burned in
the destruction of the temple, and later restored by the scribe Ezra;
how it has been edited and revised again and again * --but to lift the
veil and show the book to the world.

     * These questions are discussed in the author's pamphlet,
     _How the Bible Was Invented._




What Makes a Book Inspired?

|BEFORE proceeding to read the book, may I explain that an _inspired_
book must be different from uninspired books. If it has excellences and
defects like other books, then it is in no sense different from any of
the works of man. An inspired book must be a perfect book, else what
advantage is there in being inspired? Again, an inspired book must
contain original matter, to justify its inspiration. If the bible
needed the help of inspiration to say what other books have said without
inspiration, then, instead of being a greater, it must needs be a more
ordinary book. Is there anything in the bible which can not be found
elsewhere? While there is not a single idea in the bible which was not
known before, there are many glorious truths of science and philosophy
in other books which can not be found in the bible. Wherein, then, is
the bible inspired?

Let me also explain that an argument, or the presentation of important
facts, produces an impression only upon the unprejudiced. The soundest
reasoning will no more convince a partisan than the most copious shower
will give nourishment to the sand. But an argument is never addressed to
a biased mind. The appeal of reason is to the fairminded and the free.

When, for instance, it is shown that certain passages are in one bible,
and not in another; or how passages, regarded as divine at one time,
have been dropped or altered in more recent revisions, a telling point
is made against an infallible book, in the opinion of all honest minds.
Or, when it is shown that the bible positively teaches falsehood and
immorality, the question of inspiration is at once closed for all
self-respecting and impartial judges. But, as intimated, nothing can
satisfy prejudice, or conquer wilful ignorance. Prejudice on the one
hand, and stupidity on the other, are as impervious to argument as a
duck's back is to water.

The present book is not for minds that are closed. When we go to court
to have a case tried, the value of the evidence we present does not
depend upon the appreciation of our adversary's counsel. However
convincing our testimony, he will never admit that it proves his client
guilty. It is the impartial judge, and it is, again, the open-minded
jury, that must pass upon the evidence. In the same way, what we say
here about the bible will not convert the priests or the rabbis. We do
not write for them. Our book will have no effect upon the pope; it is
not meant to change _his_ views. This book is for those who can afford
the truth.

In conclusion, the bible is a very _delicate_ subject to handle. The
material in hand is so prodigious, and of such a nature, that I am at a
loss to know what to say and what to omit. There are many things in the
bible to which I would like to call attention but which
I am debarred from so doing because good taste will not allow it. Yet
not to be able to refer to these matters places me in the position of an
attorney who has his best witnesses and evidence thrown out by a ruling
of the court. The church people are permitted to go on and print in
every language the texts and stories of the bible which I am not allowed
even to read in public--much less to comment on them. They can sell the
book by the millions, containing absurdities and atrocities which, by
order of the court (that is to say, of public opinion, or of good
taste), I am prohibited from referring to in my argument against the
authority of the book. The reader can have no idea what a protection
that is to the bible. The defendant, as it were, has gagged the
prosecution. It needs no effort to realize how much the bible is
indebted to this fact for its being tolerated at all in the twentieth
century. Courtesy prevents the exposure which would completely change
the world's opinion of the book.

But one can be a little freer in a book than on a public platform. Many
of the texts quoted in this volume could not have been read from the
platform. But there are numerous passages in the bible which would cause
even cold print to blush. We shall not disturb those.




The Sects and Their Bibles

|THE Jews deny that the second half of the bible is inspired; the
Christians admit that the first part of the bible is not as binding as
the second part.

The Jew fails to observe that, in denying inspiration to the New
Testament, he is also depriving the Old of its inspiration. The
arguments by which he disproves the New Testament are the same which
disprove the Old, and all other "inspired" documents.

The Christian, by admitting that the Old Testament is no longer as
binding upon the conscience of man as it was at one time, or as the New
Testament is now, surrenders the whole question of inspiration. If the
Old Testament has been superseded, the New might be, too. If what God
says in one part of the book can be ignored by the Christians, what he
says in another part of the book may just as reasonably be ignored by
the Jews, and--this is important--what God says in either part of
the book may be ignored by the _Rationalist_. In other words, the
Rationalist agrees with the Christian that the Old Testament is
_passé_, and with the Jews, that the New Testament is nothing more than
ecclesiastical literature. The Rationalist uses the arguments of the Jew
against the New Testament, and the arguments of the Christian against
the Old, with the result that practically both Testaments fall by the
blows of the sectarians themselves. Both Jew and Christian seem to be
unable to perceive, or if they do, they are unwilling to admit, that not
only has each destroyed the position of the other, but also his own.

All the objections which the Jew brings against Christianity are equally
valid against his own Judaism. Does he object to the Christian trinity?
There is a trinity also in his religion. In Genesis we read that
the Lord appeared unto Abraham in three persons. He entertained and
worshiped the three men as one Lord. * Does the Jew object to the dogma
of incarnation? In the Old Testament, God repeatedly appears in flesh
and blood. Is it the immaculate conception that the Jew can not accept?
In Judaism, too, that miracle was of frequent occurrence. Maidens in
the Old Testament, as in the New, see an angel of the Lord and become
pregnant. Is it the doctrine of hell to which the Jew objects? Jesus,
in all probability, borrowed it from the Talmud. Is it an exclusive
salvation that the Jew rejects? But the _extra ecclesia non est solus_
of the Catholic is but another version of the "Outside Israel there
is no salvation" of the Old Testament. Is it the doctrine of blood
atonement in the New Testament which offends him? The Old Testament is
as _red_ as the New. The difference between Judaism and Christianity is
one of name, largely. Is it not remarkable how people will subscribe
to the very doctrines which they reject, if presented to them under a
different name? Jew and Christian have persecuted one another in the
past. Why? Only for a name. The pity of it! Judaism is Christianity,
and Christianity is Judaism. They are called by different names--that is
all.

To the Jew we say: "You will not take upon you the yoke of the New
Testament; cast down also the yoke of the Old." And to the Christian we
say: "You have already emancipated yourself from the authority of the
Old Testament to a great extent; free yourself also from the authority
of the New."




Catholic and Protestant Bibles

|THE Catholics do not believe in the Protestant bible; the Protestants
do not trust the Catholic bible. Each tells the truth about the bible of
the other, but not of his own.

As in the case of the Jew and the Christian, neither the Catholic nor
the Protestant seems to realize that in condemning each other's bible as
untrustworthy, or as a manipulated copy, they are condemning also each
his own bible. If the Catholics have tampered with the Word of God, as
the Protestants claim they have; and if the Protestants have a defective
bible, as the Catholics charge, then the claim that God has preserved
his revelation from human error falls to the ground. If God did not
protect the Protestant bible from corruption, he is liable to be equally
unconcerned about the Catholic bible, from which it follows that the
Word of God can be, and has been, corrupted, which, if true--and both
Catholics and Protestants say it is--then there is no incorruptible Word
of God.

The Rationalist shares with the Catholic the latter's opinion of the
Protestant bible; and of the Catholic bible, it doubts its reliability
just as the Protestants do. Putting what the Protestants and Catholics
say of each other's bible side by side, the Rationalist arrives at the
conclusion that both bibles are untrustworthy.

Let us now consider another phase of the Catholic-Protestant position
on the bible. The Protestants are apparently very anxious to make
the reading of the bible in the home and the school imperative; the
Catholics, on the other hand, seek to make it equally imperative _not_
to read the bible. It is well known that the popes of Rome, as heads of
the church and vicars of Christ, have repeatedly forbidden the reading
of the bible by the people. An index of forbidden books is kept in Rome
for the guidance of the faithful, and, surprising as it may seem,
the bible was placed upon this _Index Expurgatorius_ by the popes
themselves. The bull of Pius IV. reads: "Whosoever shall dare to own a
copy of this book (bible) and read it without having procured a special
dispensation shall not receive absolution for his sins."

Similar prohibitions were given by Pius VI., Leo II, XII., Gregory XVI.,
Pius IX. in his Syllabus, and Clement XI. in his famous bull,
_Unigenitus_. In the _Index_ of forbidden books of Pope Innocent XI.,
1704, one of the books forbidden is "the bible in any of the popular
languages."

This prohibition was not against the Protestant bibles only, for the
fourth clause in the _Index_ is a warning against Catholic bibles as
well, _"bibliorum Catholicis autoribus versorum_."

My sympathies in this matter are with the Catholics; if the bible is
an infallible book, we ought to have an infallible reader. To say that
everybody may interpret the bible as he pleases is to say that the bible
has no meaning at all, except what the readers themselves _read_ into
it. But if it has an infallible meaning, only an infallible interpreter
can pronounce upon it. And when it is remembered that an erroneous
interpretation might be the means of damning the souls of many, it
becomes a positive duty not to read the book for one's self. The Pope
may read it, because being infallible, he can not misread it. I admire
the logic of the Catholic church in this respect. Grant the premises
that the bible is a special revelation--and infallible--and all the
arguments of the Protestants against the Catholic position shatter to
pieces, like the waves against a rock.

But, as already intimated, the Protestants believe in putting the
bible in every house, hotel and school. They want every man to carry
a pocket-bible; and if women had pockets they would be urged to do the
same. From all this one would suppose that they were very anxious to
get everybody acquainted with the contents of the bible. The different
ministerial assemblies, at their annual gatherings, recently attacked
by official resolutions the decision of the Supreme Court of
Illinois, which made the reading of the bible in the public schools
unconstitutional. The Protestant churches do not seem to care at all
about the constitution--they want the bible in the schools, constitution
or no constitution. In the twentieth century the supreme court rules the
bible out of the people's schools! Had not Greece fallen before the wave
of Asiatic mysticism, the bible would have been ruled out of Europe two
thousand years ago. The Supreme Court of Illinois is doing now what
the supreme court of Europe should have done in the year one.
Notwithstanding protests to the contrary, I am of the opinion that the
Protestants are at heart as opposed to the reading of the bible as the
Catholics. Indeed, they would have everybody read the bible, but they
must not read it with their own eyes, but as Calvin, or Wesley, or
Luther read it. But that is not different from the Catholic position
that the Pope must read the bible for the people. If the Protestants
really permit each to read and interpret the bible according to his best
thought, why are there heresy trials among them? That is a searching
question. Heresy trials prove beyond a doubt that the Protestants do not
wish anybody to read the bible for himself. See what the church did to
me for reading the bible with my own eyes. At the age of twenty-five,
myself, my wife and baby were dispossessed of church, position and
support. What was done to me for reading the bible with my own eyes has
been done to thousands of others?

"Let _me_ read the bible for you," says the Catholic.

"Read the bible with _my_ eyes," says the Protestant.

What is the difference?




Catholics Make Their Own Bible

|ONE of the significant facts about the bible is that no two copies of
it are exactly alike. There are nearly as many versions of it as
there are sects. The most important variations are to be found between
Catholic and Protestant bibles. As I write I have before me a copy of
the Catholic "Holy Bible," on the title-page of which are these words:

````HOLY BIBLE.

```Translated from the Latin Vulgate.

`_This edition of the Holy Catholic Bible, having been duly

```examined, is hereby approved of._

Then follows a long list of the names of bishops and archbishops. It
is thus intimated that no bible is the "Word of God" unless it has the
endorsement of these Catholic dignitaries. Only after these men have
examined the bible and given it their sanction does the book become
"divine." No layman can tell for himself, unaided by a priest, the "Word
of God" from the word of man. In fact, it is the priest who changes the
word of man into the "Word of God" by the same process that he converts
ordinary bread into a God.

There is given also in the "Holy Catholic Bible," before me, a list of
the books which are pronounced to be "inspired" by the Council of Trent.
To introduce into the bible any book not contained in this list, or to
exclude from the bible any one of the books which the Council of Trent
has decided to be "inspired," is to be guilty of blasphemy. This is what
it says:

_Now if any one reading over these books in all their parts, as they
are usually read in the Catholic Church... does not hold them sacred and
canonical... and does industriously contemn them let him be anathema._

To be _anathema_ means to be accursed. In other words, there is no
choice; it is the Catholic bible or a curse. No man has any right
to choose for himself, or decide according to his own conscience and
knowledge, which is the "Word of God," or how much in the various
bibles is actually "the Word of God." He must, then, choose between
the priest's bible or--his curse. To try to prove a book "inspired" by
threatening to _curse_ all those who may tell the truth about it, is a
sure sign that the makers of the bible themselves do not believe in
its inspiration. It is impossible to think that if the priests really
believed the bible to be "divine," they would have undertaken to hedge
it about with anathemas. But they curse to conceal their own unbelief.
There is not another book that had to curse its readers to make them
believe in it.

The most effective argument against the bible is furnished by the church
itself. For nearly fifteen hundred years it hanged and burned people
alive to make them believe in the bible. That is a good way to prove
one's unbelief, not one's faith. It shows what little confidence the
Catholics had in the ability of "the Word of God" to defend itself
against a Giordano Bruno, when they burned him at the stake; and how
dubious the Protestants were of _their_ bible, when they burned Michael
Servetus at the stake. The long list of terrible crimes committed in
defense of the bible is a conclusive proof, first, of the unbelief of
the Christians themselves in the ability of the bible to win men by the
beauty and truth of its teachings; and, second, of the evil influence of
the book upon those who accepted its authority.

The preface to the Catholic bible offers a further proof of the lack
of confidence of Christians in "the Word of God." It forbids people,
as already shown, to read the Word of God without first securing the
consent of a priest. It is a heinous thing, according to the church
authorities, to undertake to read the bible on one's own responsibility.
"To prevent and remedy this abuse" (namely, that of reading the bible,
and interpreting it for one's self), says this same preface, "it was
judged necessary to forbid the reading of the scriptures in the vulgar
tongues." Of course, ''there is no prohibition against reading it
in Latin, or Hebrew, or Greek, or in any language that one does not
understand, but it is forbidden to read it in the _vulgar_, that is
to say, in any language that the reader is familiar with, "without the
advice and permission of the pastors and spiritual guides whom God has
appointed to govern his church." To prove this authority of the priest
to forbid the reading of the bible, the following text is quoted: "He
that will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the
publican." *

     *  Matthew xviii, 17, Catholic Bible.

The church _must_ be obeyed. The commandment says nothing about
obeying the church only when she is in the right, or only when she is
reasonable, or even only when she is scriptural--she must be obeyed
because she is the church. And this, too, is quite consistent with the
claims of an infallible revelation. If everybody is to be given the
liberty to decide when the church is right, reasonable, or scriptural,
and when she is not, then it is not the church, but the individual, who
is infallible. If the bible is "inspired," there is no escape from the
conclusions of the Catholic church. Did not Jesus say to the Apostles,
and, therefore, to the priests: "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven"? * Does not this make everybody the slave of the
church?

     * Matthew xviii, 18, Catholic Bible.

The Catholic bible contains nearly a dozen more "inspired" books than
the Protestant bible, and many of the texts in the books which are
common to both are differently translated. By comparing the list of
books in the Catholic bible with the books in the Protestant bible, we
find that the Protestants are "accursed" by the decision of the Council
of Trent, inasmuch as they deny the inspiration of, and exclude from
their bible, about twelve of the books in the Catholic bible. Now, what
is a layman to do when infallible churches disagree? We are commanded
by the bible to hear the church, but which church? If we could decide
ourselves which is the true church, we would then be greater than the
church, as it would need our approval before it could exercise any
authority over us. But if we can not decide which is the true church,
what are we going to do? This is an important question, because unless
we belong to the true church we can not have the true bible.

The Catholics "curse" the Protestant bible. This is the literal truth.
The Protestants, on the other hand, call the Catholic bible "a popish
imposture." While they are wrangling about it, what becomes of the Word
of God?

But the most interesting part in the preface to the Catholic bible is
the warning which the church gives to the reader of the bible, not to be
shocked, or scandalized, by the immoral and impossible stories contained
therein. The reader is cautioned against applying to the bible the
standard of morality by which other books are judged. To scare the
reader into praising in the bible what he would unreservedly and
sweepingly condemn in other books, the following biblical text is
quoted:

_My thoughts are not as your thoughts, neither are my ways as your ways,
saith the Lord; for as the heavens are exalted above the earth even
so are my ways exalted above your ways and my thoughts above your
thoughts._ *

Well, of course, that being the case, the reader shall start with his
mind made up that he must not understand anything he reads. The better
and much safer thing to do is not to read the bible at all. And that is
honestly what both Catholics and Protestants would like to say, if
they could. The Catholic bible in its preface comes as near giving that
advice as it dares, as the following will show:

_How then shall any one, by his private reason, pretend to judge, to
know, to demonstrate, the incomprehensible and unsearchable ways of
God?_

What is the use of reading an "incomprehensible" and "unsearchable"
book? The Word of God could not have been meant for man. Let it pass.

     * Isaiah lv, 8-9, Catholic Bible; same in Protestant bible.




PART II.




I. The Tercentenary of the English Bible

|JUST at present there is a revival of interest in the bible. The three
hundredth anniversary of the King James' version of the Holy Bible was
recently celebrated in the great cities of Christendom. All the pulpits
have been heard from in praise of the book. It will be noticed, however,
that almost every one of the preachers confined himself to glittering
generalities about the bible. Judging by the reports of their sermons,
there was not a single speaker who attempted a careful and instructive
study of the book--its origin, its growth, or the character of its
contents. Although the book was eloquently praised as the best ever
written, no effort was made to point out wherein, or in what respect,
the bible deserved the honor and the worship demanded in its behalf. The
preachers spoke of the bible with the same confidence, or conceit, that
the Moslem displays when he is praising his bible. One of the well-known
speakers, W. J. Bryan, challenged the world, at the bible-meeting in
Chicago, to produce a better book than the Jewish-Christian scriptures.

The celebration of the three hundredth anniversary of the publication
of the authorized version presented also an opportunity to many of the
defenders of the bible to praise the translators of the bible under
King James of England. An idea of the moral and intellectual standing
of these divines may be had by reading the preface which is attached to
every bible printed in Great Britain. In this, they dedicate the work to
the king, whom they exalt as a paragon of virtue. James I.
was, by universal consent, one of the meanest and most worthless
pedants that ever wore a crown. Yet, even as the divines who formulated
the Nicene creed addressed to Constantine, who had murdered the members
of his own household in cold blood, the words, "You have established the
faith, exterminated the heretics. That the king of heaven may preserve
the king of earth is the prayer of the church and clergy," the English
authors of the authorized version looked upon James, the meanest of the
Stuarts, as the vicar of God on earth, and presented him the following
address:

_To the Most High and Mighty Prince James, by the grace of God, King
of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, the
translators of the Bible wish Grace, Mercy and Peace, through Jesus
Christ our Lord.

Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which
Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us, the people
of England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and
reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished
not well unto our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental
Star, Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory, some thick and palpable
clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land that men should
have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should
hardly be known who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance
of Your Majesty, as of the Sun of strength, instantly dispelled those
supposed and surmised mists and gave unto all that were well affected
exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government
established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted
Title, and this also accompanied with peace and tranquillity at home and
abroad._

And much more, in this same strain, concluding with these words:

_The Lord of heaven and earth bless Your Majesty with many and happy
days, that, as his heavenly hand hath enriched Your Highness with many
singular and extraordinary graces, so You may be the wonder of the world
in this latter age for happiness and true felicity, to the honour of
that great God and the good of his Church, through Jesus Christ, our
Lord and only Saviour._

What made these "divines" so proud of James? He was their king. What
makes the "divines" of to-day praise the bible so effusively? It is
their bible. We regret to say that the "divines" of to-day no more speak
the truth about the bible than the "divines" of three hundred years ago
spoke the truth about King James.




Some Lay Defenders of the Bible--Bryan's Challenge

|ONE of the speakers at the tercentenary celebration was William
Jennings Bryan. Though not a "divine" as yet, he may become one,
according to reports, in the near future. Bryan was invited to deliver
the principal address at a mass meeting of the Christian churches of
Chicago (the Catholic church not included), in Orchestra Hall. In this
address, the oft-time presidential candidate openly challenged the
critics of his bible and of its divine origin "to produce a book equal
in wisdom and teachings to the volume which has stood the test of
centuries."

After I made sure that Mr. Bryan had really made the challenge, as will
appear by the quotations from his paper, _The Commoner_, which will be
given later, a telegram was addressed to him, signed by myself, in which
I accepted his challenge and invited him to state the terms on which
he would join me in the discussion of this timely and most important
subject, at the Auditorium, which seats six thousand people. Receiving
no reply, a telegram was forwarded to the proprietor of the Lincoln
_Star_--Lincoln being the home town of Mr. Bryan--requesting the
publisher to please interview Mr. Bryan about this matter. To the
courtesy of this gentleman I am indebted for the following message from
Lincoln:

_Charles Bryan has forwarded letter to W. J. Bryan, who returns here
June 3. Will hand Mr. Bryan your telegram when he reaches Lincoln._

The "Charles Bryan" in the dispatch is, I am told, the secretary, as
well as the brother, of William Jennings Bryan. He says he has forwarded
letter, ostensibly about my telegram, to W. J. Bryan. Why did he not
send him the telegram, itself? If his letter merely informed Bryan that
there was a telegram for him from Chicago, without either enclosing the
same in his letter, or telling him of its contents, Mr. Bryan had good
reason to discharge such a secretary. But if he enclosed the telegram,
or, which is more likely, informed Mr. Bryan of its import, why does
he say that he will hand the telegram to Bryan "when the latter reaches
Lincoln"? Why keep a telegram a whole month before giving it to the
person to whom it is addressed? But if his letter had already advised
Bryan of my acceptance of his challenge, and my offer to let him dictate
his own terms, why pretend that the telegram will remain sealed until
Mr. Bryan returns to Lincoln on the third of June?

Evidently, all that the two Bryans wanted was to postpone the day of
reckoning. The third day of June arrived, but no answer came from Bryan.
Another appeal was made to the Lincoln _Star_:

_If no trouble, would you mind finding if Bryan is at home; and what he
expects to do about Mangasarian's acceptance of his challenge._

And as promptly as in the former instance, the answer came:

_Bryan says he will take no action re challenge._

But it was Mr. Bryan who made the challenge in the first place. His
challenge was not only made in public, but it is now in print, as the
following from the report of his Orchestra Hall address, as it appeared
in Bryan's own paper, fully shows:

_The Christian world has confidence in the bible; it presents the book
as the Word of God, but the attacks made upon it by its enemies continue
in spite of the growth of the bible's influence. The Christian world
by its attitude presents a challenge to the opposition, and this is an
opportune moment to emphasize the challenge._

How does the distinguished Nebraskan get over these words? If "_The
Christian world... presents a challenge to the opposition, and this is
an opportune moment to emphasize the challenge_," why did not Mr. Bryan
promptly and gladly accept an offer which placed one of the greatest
halls in the country at his disposal, without any expense whatever to
himself or to the Christian world? To say the least, it is significant
that a successful orator and popular lecturer like Mr. Bryan, with his
implicit confidence in the bible as the best book in all the world,
would even hesitate, much less decline, to accept so great an
opportunity as was placed at his disposal. Moreover, if he were
not going to make "the action suit the word," why did he speak of a
challenge at all? Was this only an oratorical display on his part? Was
it mere bravado? If he were talking on the same subject again, would he
repeat his challenge to the "opposition"? If our little episode with
him will prevent him from ever using the word "challenge" again in his
religious speeches, we shall consider our services well rewarded.

But the real reason for Bryan's collapse as a bible champion will
be seen in perusing the following comments on his address at the
tercentenary celebration.




Bryan's Defense of the Bible

|AS reported in _The Commoner_ * Bryan began his address by saying that
the critics of the bible _... have disputed the facts which it sets
forth and ridiculed the prophesies which it recites; they have rejected
the account which it gives of the creation and scoffed at the miracles
which it records. They have denied the existence of the God of the Bible
and have sought to reduce the Savior to the stature of a man. They have
been as bold as the prophets of Baal in defying the Living God and in
heaping contempt upon the Written Word. Why not challenge the atheists
and the materialists to put their doctrines to the test? When Elijah was
confronted by a group of scorners who mocked at the Lord whom he
worshiped, he invited them to match the power of their God against the
power of his, and he was willing to concede superiority to the one who
would answer with fire. When the challenge was accepted he built an
altar, prepared a sacrifice, and then, to leave no room for doubt, he
poured water upon the wood and the sacrifice--poured until the water
filled the trenches round about. So firm was his trust that he even
taunted his adversaries with their failure while his proofs were yet to
be presented. The prophets of Baal, be it said to their credit, had
enough confidence in their God to agree to the test, and their
disappointment was real when he failed them--they gashed themselves with
knives when their entreaties were unanswered.

Why not a bible test?_

     * May 12, 1911.

Mr. Bryan does not tell the rest of the story, although as much of it as
he gives is bad enough.

Elijah had no desire to convert his rivals to the true faith; he wanted
to kill every one of them, which he did:

_And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of
them escape.... And Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and
slew them there._ *

     *  There were 450 of them.

This is the same Elijah who prayed for a drought, and for the space
of three years not a drop of rain fell upon the land. If there is an
educated man who can admire such a prayer, or the Being who answered it,
or who can believe that for three years, men, women, children, plants
and animals went thirsty--he is really beyond hope.

Mr. Bryan did not accept our invitation, because, I believe, he felt
that he would not have the courage to repeat this story of Elijah
before any other kind of an audience than one composed strictly of such
Christian or Jewish believers who dare not think straight.

What, for instance, would Bryan have answered if he were asked why
Elijah did not leave to the deity the killing of the four hundred and
fifty priests of an alien faith? If God could send down fire from
heaven to burn up the bullock, he could just as easily send down fire
to destroy the whole priesthood of Baal--as he sent down fire to destroy
Sodom and Gomorrah. But Elijah executed his critics himself; he did not
believe, evidently, that his God could get rid of them
without his help. In this he was more infidel than the priests he
killed. Murder was Elijah's intent from the first. In the history of
religious persecution was there ever a priest who believed enough in God
to leave to him the burning, or the quartering of heretics alive? How
much nobler was the example of the Roman emperor who refused to give
his sanction to religious persecution on the ground that the gods could
avenge their own wrongs.*

     * Deorum injurias deis curae.

And does Bryan really believe that, once upon a time, the only way the
Deity could hold his own was by giving pyrotechnic exhibitions, which
ended in wholesale bloodshed? Is that the kind of a test Bryan desires?
The fact that there are even more unbelievers to-day than in Elijah's
time is a proof that the "fire and blood" test is a failure. It is
Reason that questions the bible, Mr. Bryan! And if the bible can not
conquer Reason, all the murders, the burnings and the hells of theology,
here or hereafter, are worse than a waste. Can'st thou conquer Reason?

But again, Bryan declines a meeting with Rationalists, because he is not
sure that the God who answered Elijah by fire will do the same for him.
If he were, he would not have hesitated for a moment. He would have had
an altar built on the platform and invoked the fire which would have
come down as soon as Bryan gave the word--injuring no one except the
unbelievers. But his faith was not strong enough for that. He is a good
enough Christian to believe that, once upon a time, that very thing
happened, but not a good enough Christian to believe that it will happen
a second time. The church has only _old_ miracles to boast of.

If I were in Mr. Bryan's place, I admit, I would have declined an
invitation to defend the bible before an audience of inquirers, just
as he has done. The mistake he made was his _challenge_ "to the
opposition," as he expresses it, and not his refusal to appear as
counsel for the bible before a critical audience. He did the only
consistent thing under the circumstances when he told the representative
of the press that he will not consider our invitation. Had he been
equally thoughtful in his Orchestra Hall address he would not have even
admitted that there are some people who do not believe in the inspired
bible--much less have challenged them.

A good Christian must never undertake to defend his bible against
criticism; the moment he attempts this he takes the whole question out
of God's hands. Who are _you_ that you should undertake to defend the
Word of God? And what makes you think that God's Word needs a defense?
No better proof could be asked for to show that both Bryan and his
hearers had lost the faith of Elijah, and were struggling in the slough
of doubt, than his elaborate attempt to defend the bible and his mock
challenge to its critics. The difference between Bryan _defending_ an
infallible book, and the critics of the same book, is not one of kind,
but one of degree. Bryan would not have undertaken to defend the bible
did he not think a defense was necessary, and to think that God's book
needs to be defended is a criticism against the book. The Nebraska
champion of the bible, then, has already entered the first stages of the
doubt which, in all logical minds, culminates in a denial of its divine
origin. No book which has to be defended can be divine.

The man who defends a _divine_ book and the man who attacks it are both
doubters.

Mr. Bryan might reply that, had he been a doubter, he would never have
challenged "the opposition," as he did in his tercentenary address. As
already stated, it is true that he made the challenge, and repeated
it many times during the course of his speech. It is equally true that
there is an air of confidence in Mr. Bryan's challenge, which must have
greatly impressed his audience. "Let them produce," he demanded, "a
better bible than ours, if they can."

_Let them collect the best of their school to be found among the
graduates of universities--as many as they please and from every land.
Let the members of this selected group travel where they will, consult
such libraries as they please, and employ every modern means of
swift communication. Let them glean in the fields of geology, botany,
astronomy, biology and zoology, and then roam at will wherever science
has opened a way; let them take advantage of all the progress in art and
in literature, in oratory and in history--let them use to the full every
instrumentality that is employed in modern civilization; and when they
have exhausted every source, let them embody the results of their best
intelligence in a book and offer it to the world as a substitute for
this bible of ours. Have they the confidence that the prophets of Baal
had in their God? Will they try? If not, what excuse will they give? Has
man fallen from his high estate, so that we can not rightfully expect as
much of him now as nineteen centuries ago? Or does the bible come to us
from a source that is higher than man--which?_

Any one listening to this flourish of trumpets would be led to think
that Mr. Bryan has already met and routed the enemy, and is now
celebrating his victory, instead of having yet to hear from the other
side. Encouraged by the silence of his audience, the speaker grows
bolder:

_But our case is even stronger. The opponents of the bible can not take
refuge in the plea that man is retrograding. They loudly proclaim that
man has grown and that he is growing still. They boast of a world-wide
advance and their claim is founded upon fact._

And Mr. Bryan expresses surprise that, with all this progress, the world
is unable "to produce a better book to-day than man, unaided, could have
produced in any previous age."

Referring once more to "the opposition," he says:

_The fact that they have tried, time and time again, only to fail
each time more hopelessly, explains why they will not--why they can
not--accept the challenge thrown down by the Christian world to produce
a book worthy to take the bible's place._

Growing bolder and bolder, in the absence of "the enemy," and feeling
confident that should "the enemy" be heard from, he could take refuge
in a dignified silence, Mr. Bryan continues, like Don Quixote, to fight
invisible foes:

_They (the agnostics) have prayed to their God to answer with
fire--prayed to inanimate matter, with an earnestness that is pathetic;
they have employed in the worship of blind force a faith greater than
religion requires, but their Almighty is asleep._

Had Mr. Bryan's "Almighty" been awake there would have been no need of
defenders of the bible. If the agnostics without divine aid, or with
only a "sleepy" God to help them, as Bryan avers, have done no more than
to compel the believers to put up a defense for their Word of God, they
have demonstrated what man, unaided by ghostly powers, can do. And it
is mere chatter to speak of agnostics as praying "to their God to answer
with fire," etc. Agnostics will pray for fire only when they lose faith
in Reason.

And is it to be inferred from the above sentence of Bryan, that his God
answers by fire? We say again, if this champion of an obsolete theology,
a theology which is being deserted by the Christian scholars themselves,
is in earnest, if he really believes all he says, if he dares to put his
faith to such a test as Elijah imposed upon his, or if he is prepared to
prove to an intelligent audience that the science, the history, and the
ethics of the bible can stand all the strain that Reason and Conscience
may put upon them--why did he run under cover as soon as he heard the
first sound of the Rationalist's approach? Mr. Bryan speaks with an air
of confidence, as the extracts from his speech show, but no battles are
won by--_air_.

In his lecture on "The Prince of Peace," Mr. Bryan takes the position
that to doubt or to question the doctrines of the churches is something
to be ashamed of. To show the difference in mentality between William
Jennings Bryan and the great Thomas Jefferson, one has only to compare
the daring and independence of the latter with the theological timidity
of the former.

From Bryan's "Prince of Peace":

_My purpose in delivering this lecture I will frankly avow. After my
first political defeat, I deliberately refrained from talking
religion in public, so as to avoid the charge of using religion as a
stepping-stone to further my personal ambitions. After my second defeat
the possibility of another nomination appeared so remote that I could
not let it weigh against the duty that I felt impelling me to address
the young men whom I saw refusing to attach themselves to a church. My
hope is that I may shame some young men out of their conceit that it is
smart to be skeptical._

From Jefferson's works, Vol. II, 2171:

_Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact,
every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God;
because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than
of blindfolded fear.... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any
fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God,
you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you
feel in the exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for
you._

The Presbyterian Bryan is ashamed of Reason; the Rationalist Jefferson
is prouder of his Reason than an emperor of his crown.

Had Mr. Bryan been reading Cicero instead of Elijah; had his culture
been European instead of Asiatic, he would never have quoted the murder
of four hundred and fifty men by one of the bible prophets as a proof
of the truth of his religion. "There are two ways of ending a dispute,"
wrote Cicero,--"discussion and force. The latter manner is simply that
of brute beasts, the former is proper to beings gifted with reason."

We leave it to Mr. Bryan to read between the lines.




II. Roosevelt on the Bible

|WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN was not the only politician, or publicist, who
contributed to the tercentenary celebration of the bible. Writing in the
_Outlook_, Theodore Roosevelt, to his own satisfaction, at least, meets
the opponents of the inspiration of the bible, and briefly disposes
of them. "Occasional critics," he writes, "taking sections of the Old
Testament, are able to point out that the teachings therein are not in
accordance with our own convictions and views of morality." Is it only
"occasional" critics who express disapproval of the Jewish-Christian
scriptures? And suppose it true that only "occasional" critics call
attention to the harm which the bible does by its immoral and impossible
teachings: Does that fact relieve the defenders of the bible from the
obligation to answer their criticisms? The important question is not,
who makes the criticism; but, is the criticism just?

"The Old Testament," continues Mr. Roosevelt, "did not carry Israel
as far as the New Testament has carried us; but it advanced Israel
far beyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached." This is
practically a plea of guilty. Why was not the Old Testament as good
as the New is supposed to be? Was it not equally divine? If the Old
Testament was meant to prepare the Jews to accept the New Testament,
they have not accepted it yet. But is it true that "the Old Testament
carried Israel far beyond the point any neighboring nation had then
reached"?

It is now nearly two thousand years since the New Testament began
to "carry us," and where have we reached? In how many things have we
advanced beyond the Greeks and the Romans, for instance? Only yesterday
the black man carried chains in our land, and throughout Christendom
white slavery of a more degrading type than ever known before is still
with us. Political corruption of a character which Mr. Roosevelt himself
has pronounced the most deep-seated and chronic is eating away the
vital parts of the American nation, while the hunger, the misery and the
squalor in the slums of our great cities, side by side with the waste
of wealth and the worship of show, prove daily the complete failure of
Christianity as a regenerating force. Whatever of hope there is to-day
in the human heart for a better future on earth, and whatever signs
there may be of a realization of justice and happiness for all men,
here and now, we are indebted for them, not to the New Testament, but
to modern thought, which is heresy from the point of view of the New, as
well as the Old, Testament.

It is the passing of the bible that has opened the way for real and
radical reforms. It is the failure of the inspired teachers to fulfill
their promises that has at last induced man to step to the front and
assume full control of the world's destinies. Man no longer prays to
the gods; he works. When the bible was supreme in Europe, was the world
better? Would Mr. Roosevelt return to the Middle Ages? Will he go back
to the times of Knox, Wesley, Calvin and the New England clergy, or to
the times when, by the authority of the bible which then ruled without
a rival, in court and church, in the home and the school, men and
women were bought and sold like animals, or burned alive as witches, or
tortured to death in a thousand dungeons for daring to think? When the
bible was supreme in Europe there was neither science nor commerce. When
the bible was supreme, tyrant and dissolute kings ruled by the "grace
of God," and priests persecuted the thinker in every capital of the
Christian world. It is the emancipation of thought, and not the New
Testament, that has conquered for us every blessing we enjoy. Not until
the Renaissance, that is to say, not until Europe deserted its Semitic
or Asiatic teachers for those of Hellas and Rome, did modern nations
begin to wax strong in mind and body. The New Testament really carried
us to the times of the Old Testament. It was the Renaissance of Greek
thought and art that changed the "thorns and thistles" of theology into
the golden fruit of science.

But what about the claim that "the Old Testament advanced Israel far
beyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached." I wish Mr.
Roosevelt would read these lines as carefully as I have read his, which,
if he does, I feel confident he will admit that he made the above
statement without taking the pains to look up the evidence. What answer
would the ex-president of the United States make if he were asked to
prove his claim that the Old Testament carried the Jews to a higher
state of civilization than the nations who were their contemporaries?

Were the Jews intellectually more advanced than any other nation of
antiquity? Solomon was the contemporary of some of the immortal Greeks,
but while Greece was nursing the arts and crafts, the Jews, in order
to build a temple to God--a temple very much smaller than many of our
modern cathedrals and churches and far less formidable--had to send
abroad for masons and carpenters. "The laborers employed in the temple
were all the strangers in the land," says one of the texts. Under Saul,
their first king, while their enemies were well equipped with weapons of
warfare, the Jews had "neither sword nor spear in the hand of any of the
people except Saul and Jonathan." We are informed also that "in all the
land of Israel not a smith was to be found," and that the Jews had to
cross over to the land of the gentiles "to sharpen every man his share
and his ax." Surely we can not conclude from conditions as barbarous as
these that the Lord bestowed any great intellectual gifts upon the Jews
as tokens of his peculiar love for them.

It is admitted by the bible writers themselves that the neighboring
nations were much more powerful than "the chosen people," and that only
by the daily miraculous intervention of God could they cope with them at
all, and that even then they were not always successful. The following
text is quite significant:

_And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the
mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because
they had chariots of iron_ *

     *  Judges i, 19.

We respectfully call Mr. Roosevelt's attention to this positive
testimony to the superiority in equipment of the Gentiles to the Jews in
bible times. Even the God of Israel was helpless against the _science_
of the Gentile nations. He could throw down stones from heaven, or stop
the sun and moon, or slay the firstborn of Egypt, but against science,
against human inventions, he could do nothing. Is it a sign of
superiority to depend upon miracles for one's daily existence? Is it not
rather a proof of the intellectual sterility of the people?

I am aware, of course, of the argument that Israel's superiority lay in
its clearer moral visions. But why should a people morally superior to
their neighbors be so mediocre in everything else? Is moral excellence
prejudicial to national development? But it is not true that the Old
Testament helped to make Israel morally superior to the heathen "round
about them." It is to be regretted that the opposite of this is the
truth. A few examples from the bible will be sufficient to support the
thesis that the bible did even less for the moral development of Israel
than it did for its intellectual and industrial expansion.

Abraham, one of the most "righteous" characters of the bible, twice
trafficked in his wife's or sister's, honor, by selling her, the first
time, to the King of Egypt for sheep and oxen, asses and camels, and
male and female slaves; he repeated the imposture by selling her a
second time to Abimelech, King of Gerar, for more "sheep and oxen, and
men servants and women servants." His son Isaac followed his father's
example, and sold to the same Abimelech his wife, Rebekah. Compare now
the behavior of the "heathen" Abimelech, with that of the bible saints.
After Rebekah had been introduced to the king as an unmarried woman by
her husband, Isaac, she was taken into his palace:

_And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that
Abimelech, king of the Philistines, looked out at a window, and saw,
and, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife.

And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy
wife: and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him,
Because I said, Lest I die for her.

And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the
people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldst have
brought guiltiness upon us.

And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man
or his wife shall surely be put to death_. *

     * Genesis xxvi, 8-II.

Which of these two characters was the more civilized? Though in daily
communion with God and protected by miracles at every step, Isaac
preferred to lie about his wife than to trust in God, and, like his
father, Abraham, he enriched himself by her shame; while the "heathen"
Abimelech, on the other hand, grieved at the thought of the wrong which
the lying Isaac might have tempted his subjects to commit. And while not
even David, another bible saint, ever thought of separating himself
from the woman he had stolen by causing her husband to be shot, these
"heathen" princes returned to Abraham and Isaac their wives.

Even Jehovah is compelled to pay a tribute to the "heathen" king:

_And God said unto him (Abimelech) in a dream, Yea, I know that thou
didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from
sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he
shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not,
know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine._ *

     * Genesis xx, 6-8.

This is a terribly incriminating admission for the deity to make. After
paying a tribute to the "integrity" of Abimelech, and acknowledging his
innocence, Jehovah threatens to kill him if he will not fall upon his
knees before the mendacious Abraham, "for he is a prophet," and beg
him to pray for his salvation. But there is not a word of censure for
Abraham for lying about his wife or for keeping the price of her shame.
Abraham was orthodox, and that covers up a multitude of sins--even
to this day. Is it any wonder that educated Jews are deserting the
synagogue?

In the thirty-fourth chapter of Genesis we find another example of the
superiority in morals of the neighboring nations to the children of
Israel. One of the daughters of Israel "went out to see the daughters of
the land." It is difficult to understand just why this young woman "went
out" among the "heathen." At any rate, she was fair, and it was not long
before she found a princely suitor. Just as Sarah and Rebekah were
taken into the homes of the Gentiles, so was Leah, Jacob's daughter. The
prince desired to retain her as his wife, and with this end in view he
asked his royal father to get him "this damsel to wife." Then

Hamor, the king, called upon Jacob to ask for the hand of his daughter
in marriage to his son, Shechem. "The soul of my son Shechem," he said
to Jacob, "longeth for thy daughter: I pray you to give her him to
wife," and he enforced his plea for closer relations between Jews and
Gentiles by the following sensible argument:

_And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and
take our daughters unto you. And ye shall dwell with us: and the land
shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions
therein_. *

The prince, too, following his father, pleaded with Jacob, to let him
marry his daughter:

_And Shechem said unto her father, and unto her brethren, Let me find
grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give.

Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye
shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife._ **

     * Genesis xxxiv, 9,10.

     ** Genesis xxxiv, 11,12.

We will let the "holy" bible tell Mr. Roosevelt the rest of the story:

_And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father
deceitfully, and said, because he had defiled Dinah their sister:

And they said unto them, We can not do this thing, to give our sister to
one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us:

But in this will we consent unto you: If ye will be as we be, that every
male of you be circumcised;

Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your
daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one
people.

But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take
our daughter, and we will be gone.

And their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem Hamor's son.

And the young man deferred not to do the thing because he had delight in
Jacob's daughter: and he was more honourable than all the house of his
father._ *

"And he was more honorable." Is there an Old Testament character of whom
it is written anywhere in the bible that he was "honorable"? But let
us see how "honorable" the sons of Jacob were in this affair. After the
Hivites had accepted the conditions, and were all circumcised, this is
what happened:

_And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of
the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his
sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and
took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out.

The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because
they had defiled their sister.

They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which
was in the city, and that which was in the field.

And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took
they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house_. **

     * Genesis xxxiv, 13-19.

     ** Genesis xxxiv, 25-29.

Were the "inspired" sons of Jacob superior to their uninspired heathen
neighbors? To marry a human being of another creed was to defile
one's self. How can there be any brotherhood in the world with such a
doctrine? That the bible God approved of these barbarities will be seen
in the following story:

_And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his
brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of
all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before
the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw
it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his
hand.

And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of
them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the
plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned
my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for
my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my
jealousy.

Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:

And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an
everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an
atonement for the children of Israel._ *

     * Numbers xxv, 6-13.

Do men like Bryan and Roosevelt, who are representative men in America,
know that there are scores of such stories in the Word of God? How do
they excuse Jehovah for rewarding Phinehas for so shameful a crime? Why
kill a man who has loved and married a Gentile? But to this day, the
orthodox Jew sits on the floor and mourns for his son or daughter who
has married a Gentile, as one mourns for the dead.

In what sense, then, is it true that "the Old Testament carried Israel
far beyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached?"

Of course, as already explained, I do not believe the shameful things
the bible relates about the Jewish people, but had Colonel Roosevelt
read the bible carefully before writing about it; or had he taken the
pains to acquaint himself with the results of higher criticism, as
presented by Christian scholars themselves, he would never have rushed
into his statement about the Old Testament carrying the Jews beyond any
nation of antiquity. In his Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names,
Dr. T. Inman, speaking on this same subject, says this:

_Even the devil is not so black as he is painted; and however dark may
be the crimes of the ancient Jews, the historian is bound to ascertain
whether there are not some bright spots in the vast pall of evil deeds
that spreads over their history. Yet to me the task is hopeless; I can
not find one single redeeming trait in the national character of the
ancient Hebrews. It is difficult to find a people in the olden times,
whereof we have a history, who were not superior to the necks shall be
your footstools._

The same scholar sums up the commandments, exhortations, ordinances and
revelations of the authors of the Old Testament, and finds their burden
to be this:

_Keep yourselves to yourselves, and to the God whom we preach; shun your
neighbors, hate them, and, when you can, plunder and kill them. Agree
among yourselves and treat your priests well, and then you shall be
great and glorious, princes, kings and potentates in every land, and
your enemies' necks shall be your footstools._ *

It is very much safer for a public man to denounce the trusts than to
read and tell the truth about the bible. Mr. Roosevelt has only made
an assertion about the value of the Old Testament to the Jews. But
an assertion is not an argument. We respectfully call Mr. Roosevelt's
attention to the opinion which Jehovah, himself, held of his own people,
which will settle the question of whether or not the bible helped to
make the Jews better than their neighbors:

_And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and
stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it:
but I found none_. ***

     * Vol. II, page 334.

     **  Inman, Vol. II, page 335.

     *** Ezekiel xxii, 30.




III. "Let Them Produce It"

|PRODUCE a book like the bible," is the oft-repeated challenge addressed
to the critics of the book. It is impossible to produce a book like the
bible, without copying it. Another bible, exactly like the one we now
have, could only be had by making the second a duplicate of the first.
There is no other way of reproducing a book. We can no more reproduce
the bible than we can the "Arabian Nights," or Shakespeare. In fact,
no two things in nature are exactly alike. Men differ from one another,
even as do books. Another Socrates, or another Napoleon, or another
Lincoln, would be an impossibility. It is equally out of the question to
have another Nero, Constantine, or Pope Alexander VI.

To ask us to produce a book like the bible is as unreasonable as to ask
us to produce another Koran, or another Mahomet. If the new Koran be
like the old, no addition, or improvement has been made to religious
literature by its production; if the new Koran be different from the
old, then it is not a reproduction. "Let them produce it!" sounds
pompous enough, but it is all noise and rattle.

In a private letter to an inquirer, to whom I am indebted for the
quotation I am about to make, Mr. W. J. Bryan, referring to the author
of this book, asks, "If Mr. Mangasarian has books better than the bible,
there is nothing to prevent his presenting them to the public, and
driving the bible out of use." But that is precisely what is being done.
The bible has been, a step at a time, driven completely out of use in
the halls of learning. It is no longer an authority, for example, on
questions of science--geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology and all the
other branches of one of the principal pursuits of man. Better books on
these subjects have replaced the "Word of God." What is true of science
is true of history, politics, government, education, commerce; in all
these departments and activities of life better books have relegated the
bible into the background.

Did the framers of the American Constitution, for instance, which
Gladstone calls "the proudest product of the pen and brain" of man,
consult the bible for their work? Did they borrow the doctrine of the
separation of Church and State from the bible? The Church in the bible
dominates the State; but the Americans compelled the Church to take
its hands off the State. Did they learn that lesson from the bible? The
Constitution, again, declares that all power is derived from the consent
of the governed. Is that biblical? Does not the "Word of God" plainly
teach that "the powers that be are appointed of God," and that not to
obey the powers thus appointed, whether they be good or evil, is to
receive "damnation to their souls"? Evidently, then, the makers of
America had better books than the bible to be guided by.

Where again, is it permitted in the bible to tolerate all religions and
to favor none? If there is any one idea more prominent than any other in
the bible, it is that the religion which it announces is alone true, and
that all the others are pernicious, and to be suppressed by fire and
the sword. And religious tolerance is one of the glories of the American
Constitution.

It is its tyranny that is attacked, it is the forbidding and misleading
labels which the priesthood has placed upon it, which we wish to remove.
It is the bible as a fetish, or as the best book, or as a weapon of
persecution, that we wish to overthrow.

But if the bible is not divine, we are asked again, how explain the
fact that despite all the attacks of all the ages, it is still loved and
cherished by so many? We might as well ask, "If the bible is divine, how
is it that in spite of all the things done to bolster it up, there are
still so many who do not believe in it?" If long life and popularity
prove the bible true, they ought to prove the Chinese and the Hindu
bibles true, too. Is a man right because he is old, or is he wrong
because he is young? Is truth to be decided by counting beans, as
Socrates would ask? If it is majorities or age that counts, then
Christianity must have been false when it was new, and counted only a
handful of followers.

And then, there is the question, "What will you give us in place of the
bible?" We can not take anything away from you which you can keep. And
if you can not keep the bible, you have to let it go, whether or not you
can find another to take its place. But are there not better stories in
the world than those of the serpent in Eden; the fall of man; the
deluge and the drowning of the human race; the ten plagues of Egypt; the
talking ass; the whale that swallowed a man, and of the innumerable wars
and massacres? Is it true that the foolish rites and ceremonies, and the
unintelligible trinities, incarnations and resurrections in the bible
can not be matched? Are we really worrying that, if we give up these
tales and mysteries, we will not be able to find anything to replace
them?

If we desire fairy stories, there is the mythology of the Greeks; if we
want miracles, there is science with its real wonders; if we want tales
of human adventure and heroism, there is history, ancient and modern; if
we want biography, better than the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
is the story of the glorious discoverers and inventors whose
genius transmuted human ignorance into knowledge and barbarism into
civilization. And for the sufferings of the gods, read the story of the
martyrdom of man!




What Is the Best Thing That Can Be Said in Favor of the Bible?

|LET us put in the mouth of the defenders of the bible the strongest,
the most convincing and the most plausible arguments imaginable. Nothing
is gained by denying to our adversary a fair chance. Who cares to
measure swords with a shadow?

I. "The bible ought to be judged by its fruits," is one of the most
commended arguments in its favor. It is claimed that civilization, with
all its blessings, is the gift of the bible. If this were true, it could
not prove the bible inspired. The inventors of steam, the mariner's
compass, and the printing-press have contributed much to human progress,
but would that prove that they were inspired? The writings of Socrates
and Aristotle greatly aided the development of Europe, as the wars of
Alexander the Great helped to educate all Asia. But does that make Greek
literature, or Alexander's wars, inspired?

But it is not true that civilization is the exclusive gift of the bible.
There was a civilization, in many respects fairer than ours, in Rome and
in Greece, without the bible; while in Christian Abyssinia there is no
civilization to-day to speak of. If the bible is the only civilizer, the
Jews should have been in advance of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the
Greeks and the Romans. If the bible is the sole civilizing force,
how explain the Dark Ages, when there was no other book that was even
allowed to be named which did not agree with the bible?

II. The next "best" argument in favor of the bible is that it gives
the world the only information on God, the soul, the origin of man, his
destiny, life beyond death, and the mysteries of Revelation. But what is
the information worth? Is its account of the creation of man and of
the universe out of nothing, and the creation of woman out of a rib,
believable? Is the portrait of God, as given in the bible, acceptable?
And as to the beyond, does the bible throw any more light on the
question than the older or newer theo-sophic books?

III. A third "best" argument is that the bible presents the highest
morality and the noblest ideals ever known by man. What are they? Did
the bible discover morality? Was selfishness, or theft, or murder, or
meanness, a virtue before the bible forbade them? Was there no love of
one's neighbor, love of one's country, or nobody to practice charity, or
justice, in the world before Moses or Jesus? But it is not true that
the bible teaches the highest morality; on the contrary, as this book
undertakes to show, morality is the least of all the anxieties of the
bible. According to its teaching, _belief_ comes first; and all the
morality in the world, we are told, can not save the man who will not
_believe._

IV. Another plea made in behalf of the bible is that it has comforted
thousands and reformed some of the worst characters. "I have the witness
of the spirit in me," argues the convert, "that the bible is the 'Word
of God.'" And he proceeds to relate how he was downcast, or fallen
in sin, and the bible made a new man of him. We rejoice whenever the
disconsolate find cheer or the fallen arise. Nor is our happiness
diminished in the least when we are told that it was the bible which
worked the change. Whoever dries a tear upon the eyelid of sorrow, and
whatever the force which lifts the fallen to their feet, deserves the
gratitude of man. But if that proves the bible divine, why are there so
many who are not comforted, or so many of the fallen who do not rise
at all? An infallible book should save more people than the bible is
claimed to do. The greater part of Christendom, not to speak of the rest
of the world, is still to be saved. If the bible only saves some, so
does education and other purely human agencies; and if education does
not save everybody, neither does the bible. Wherein, then, is the
superiority of the "divine" to the human?

Moreover, if a man is comforted by reading Shakespeare, or Goethe, or
Emerson, or George Eliot, would that prove these authors inspired? Or,
if a sick man is made better by exercise, or medical attention, and a
bad man becomes good by a change of environment, would it follow that
these agencies were divine? If the bible is not the only power that can
help, then it is but one of many agencies, and why should one of the
many agencies which make for improvement be labeled "divine"?

Nor does the plea that, because "I feel it in my heart that the bible
is divine," make it so. If "I feel it in my heart" were enough to prove
anything true, other bibles would be as true as ours. The Turk and the
Chinaman "feel it" in their hearts about their gods as we do about ours.
The argument from _feeling_ practically dispenses with knowledge, and
leads to intellectual nihilism.

V. In defense of the bible it is further urged that, it being "a
heavenly treasure in an earthen vessel," allowance should be made for
the unavoidable imperfections which have crept into its pages. God
was the author, man was the amanuensis, they say, and, therefore, the
defects of the bible should be charged to the account of man. But why
should a heavenly treasure be enclosed in an earthen vessel? Are there
no heavenly vessels? Was not Jesus as divine as his father? Why could
not he have committed the revelation to writing? Why leave it to
unknown and unreliable reporters to transcribe a divine message? If
the reporters were not unreliable, then what is the complaint? But if
reliable reporters could not be found, the deity could just as easily,
and very much more safely, have written the whole of his message with
his own hand. Besides, a heavenly treasure which an earthen vessel can
spoil is not very heavenly. If the incorruptible can be corrupted, then
it is not any different from any other corruptible thing. Alas! for the
infallible book which has to be protected against printers' or revisers'
mistakes. Let us have a better bible--one that no earthen vessel can
contaminate.

VI. Finally, "Why not dwell upon the truths in the bible and let
alone the errors?" is another of the "strong arguments" of the bible
defenders. "There are truths enough in the bible, and to spare," say
they. "Why, then, waste time on its imperfections?" But it all depends
upon how serious the imperfections are. It is not the number of errors,
but their importance that counts. One serious blemish in a book would
be enough to condemn the whole book. The strength of a chain is in its
weakest link. It is no comfort to think that there are many more sound
links in the chain than weak ones. When the defects in the bible are
pointed out, it is no answer to say that many, or even most, of its
parts are all right. But this leads us to the next important question.




IV. How to Test a Book

|THE character of a book is determined not by its best, but by its worst
parts. This sounds paradoxical, but let us see if it is not true. The
bulk of a book may be composed of harmless and even of wholesome matter,
but if there is in it even half a page of questionable teaching, the
book becomes unsafe. One may write magnificently of liberty and the
rights of man, for instance, but if anywhere in the book, even though
only for once, assassination be recommended as a political weapon, that
one idea would give to the whole work a dangerous tendency. Indeed, the
good parts of such a book, if anything, add to the mischief it might do,
because they help to give it an air of respectability. In the same way,
a comedy, or a drama, may be perfectly proper in nearly all its parts,
but if it offends good taste, or attacks morality in a single line, the
play is bad. One indelicate scene in a production will bring upon its
author the just condemnation of the public. Likewise, a novel may be
crowded with helpful philosophical reflections, but the least vulgarity
in it would make the book a menace.

We are not taking the position that such books or plays should never
be read or acted, but that they should never be given an _unqualified_
endorsement. The bible is given an unqualified endorsement. To deserve
it, it ought not only to be good in the main, but good altogether. We
shall see if the bible is good even in the main; but before we take up
that phase of the subject let me give you a few more illustrations
to show that it is not true of the bible only that its worst parts
determine its character, but also of the men in it who are held up for
our emulation. If any one of our physical organs is in an unhealthy or
perilous condition, the health of the whole body is in question. The
soundness of all our other parts can not excuse the alarming symptoms of
the affected organ. The insurance companies will reject our application
if, though perfectly well in all our other organs, we are seriously
affected in any one of them.

By the same rule is measured a man's intellectual parts. It is not the
thousand sensible things a man says, but the one absurd or impossible
statement he advances which gives us the gauge of his intellect. To the
objection that the rule which we have been applying would do a great
injustice if applied to such a man as Alfred Russel Wallace, for
instance, who though an eminent scientist, and the rival of Charles
Darwin, was also a firm believer in spiritualism, the answer is that the
example cited proves the inadvisability of endorsing any book or man,
unqualifiedly. Only an infallible book, or an infallible man, could
command such endorsement. The bible, therefore, must be perfect in
everything, else its unqualified endorsement by the clergy is a real
danger.

But not only the physical and the intellectual, but also the moral
character of a man is ascertained by this rule. One act of treachery or
murder is enough to put a man behind the bars. Before such a man may be
restored to society he must reform, and, likewise, before a book may
be given full endorsement, the objectionable and the absurd must be
eliminated therefrom. In the same way, before any man could be held
up as a perfect example, he must be above the charge of even a single
serious defect. If you would have your play staged, cut out the
offending lines; if you would have your bible read in the home and the
school, and the characters therein depicted, admired and followed, cut
out the scandalous stories and the immoral teachings it contains. You
will not do this? Then both science and morality have the right to
condemn your book, and forbid its use in the public schools, by the help
of the courts. We hope that in the near future the civilized world
will avail itself of this right, by taking steps to render the bible as
harmless in church and Sunday-school as it now is in the public schools.
This can be done by breaking down the _unqualified endorsement_ which
the sectarian interests of the country have given the book. Unveil the
bible! and its glamour will vanish.

The most telling proofs in favor of the Rationalist position on the
bible are the admissions which, from time to time, the defenders of the
bible themselves make. The editors of the _Oberlin College Magazine_,
which is a religious publication, in an article on "Bible Hero
Classics," suggest that parts of the bible should be excluded from the
mails:

_Modern scholarship has so changed the point of view with which the
bible is regarded, that one no longer has the confidence, in sending the
"seeker after God" to the bible to believe that he will certainly find
Him there. The Old Testament is a complete literature with units of
varying value. Much of it is incomprehensible to the ordinary reader.
Parts of it should be excluded from the mails._

Prof. Dr. Charles Henderson, the chaplain of the University of Chicago,
expresses his utter contempt for certain parts of the bible: "John
the Baptist's God was no better than our devil. The things which
made Solomon and David saints in their own day would land them in the
penitentiary in ours." *

     * Reported in the Tribune, Chicago.

The bible quotes God as saying that David was a man after His own heart,
but this divine tells us David was a criminal. Could a more damaging
admission be made by a clergyman? And yet the book that can mistake a
scoundrel for a saint is to be placed in the hands of our children at a
very tender age, and foisted upon the whole nation as "the sublimest of
books," to quote the words of another divine. * A book concerning which
its own friends can hold such diametrically opposite opinions can not
be, at least, a very honest book. Honest people speak or write to be
understood. If what one reader of the bible calls God, another calls the
devil; or if to one reader David is a great saint, while to another he
is only a scamp, deserving a long term in jail, then, surely, either we
can not understand the bible, in which case the book is worthless;
or the bible was not meant to be understood, which leads to the same
conclusion.

     * Editor Sunday School Times.

The Rev. J. Biresley, writing in the _Christian World_, pays,
unconsciously, a great tribute to the Rationalist: "More than thirty
years ago I listened to a lecture by Charles Bradlaugh on 'Is the Bible
True'? His assertions shocked the orthodox among his hearers, and yet
there was scarcely one of them which the biblical students of to-day
would not accept." What a compliment this is to the courage of the
Rationalist. He dared to shock the orthodox at a time when they had the
power to persecute him unto death. And what an admission this is, of the
intellectual and moral superiority of the heretic to the believer! It
takes "thirty years" of dilly-dallying before Christian scholars will
admit that the persecuted heretic was in the right. Is it any wonder
that the world is losing respect for priest and preacher and honoring
the heretics as the pioneers of the golden day of truth?

To the churches we say: "If you would save the bible, separate the good
from the bad, and the false from the true. Do not print them all in one
volume as the 'Holy Bible.' If you have not the courage to call any part
of the bible bad, or any of its statements false--we shall do it for
you."




Speak According to Knowledge

|THERE are also good things in the bible. It would be regrettable,
indeed, to believe it possible for a book of the size of the bible to be
wholly bad. Literature is life; and it would be as impossible to find
a people with a literature wholly bad, as it would be to find a people
with an infallible literature. Together with the _Vedas_ of India, the
_Avesta_ of the Pharisees, the _Five Kings_ of the Chinese, the Buddhist
_Tri Pitikes_, and the Moslem _Koran_, the Jewish-Christian scriptures
contain many splendid passages.

In all ancient literature we run across bits of fine poetry and
eloquence. It would really be impossible to collect all the literature
of a people, of whatever race or period in history, into one volume,
without finding in the collection many a precious gem. The cry of a man
in distress is always touching, be he Jew or Hindu. The love of man for
home and fatherland, for wife and child, for truth and freedom, in any
book, is sublime. Friendship is the one rose without a thorn, wherever
it blooms. A melody does not have to be inspired, to be sung in all
lands. We weep for the sufferings of a savage of ten thousand years ago,
and we laugh with the men of wit and humor of every race and clime. We
have no prejudice against the bible. All we demand is the liberty
to read it as we do any other literature: To enjoy what is noble and
inspiring in it, and to reject what is false and degrading. It is the
object of our efforts to make it perfectly proper, as well as safe,
for any one to read and tell the truth about the bible. No man shall be
compelled to agree with it upon penalty of losing his standing in the
community now, or his "soul" in the hereafter.

In comparing one book with another, we must bear in mind that it is not
the ideas in which they agree, but those in which they disagree, that
justifies their existence. All the seven bibles of the world * forbid
crime and recommend the virtues. Are they, then, all equally worthy?
If the important thing is sameness of teaching, why is not one bible
enough? But there are many bibles, because it is the differences that
preserve, as well as distinguish, one book from another. We would never
be able to tell wherein the bible of Confucius was superior to the
Moslem Koran, or the Koran to the Avesta of Zoroaster, or again, the
book of science to the creeds, if we confined our investigations to the
things held in common by them all. It is by the things in which they
_disagree_ that their real character is revealed.

     * The seven bibles of the world are the Koran of the
     Mohammedans, the Tri Pitikes of Buddhists, the Five Kings of
     the Chinese, the three Vedas of the Hindus, the Zend Avesta
     of the Persians, the Eddas of Scandinavia, and Old and New
     Testaments of the Christians.

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor" is in all the bibles, but "Speak
according to knowledge" is not in any of the bibles--it is found only in
the bible of science, and that is the difference between religion, which
builds on _faith_, and science, which builds on _knowledge_.

In this one difference is the glory of science, a glory which is not
shared by any of the sectarian bibles of the world.

"Speak according to knowledge" and "Speak according to knowledge."
That is to say, "Let your tongue keep pace with your mind," are the two
commandments for which one looks in vain in the Jewish-Christian bible.
Neither Moses nor Jesus ever thought of commanding, or at least of
permitting, people to confine their statements and beliefs to the
facts--of never dogmatizing about the unknown, which vice has converted
the world into a babel of discord, hatred and persecution. Never did
either of these teachers think of inculcating so sweet, so sane,
so wholesome, so modest, so reverent, so peaceful, a command as is
expressed in the caution which science has posted up at every turn of
the road: Speak according to knowledge.

Nor does the bible allow people to speak their true thoughts. Could any
book be guilty of a greater offense against the highest ethics? All the
Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount can not make up for this
failure of the bible to encourage, yea; and to command, in unmistakably
plain and persuasive language, liberty of thought and speech as the only
guarantee of honesty in religion, and as the only enemy which falsehood
fears. On the other hand, how can any book be called good, much less the
best, in all the world, which contains such a passage as the following:

_He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth
not shall be damned._ *

     * Mark xvi, 16.

Can freedom and the bible live under the same roof? Would it be safe
to speak according to knowledge, when "damnation" is the penalty for so
doing? Was it to encourage honesty, liberty of conscience and tolerance
that so Asiatic and despotic a command as the above has been translated
into all the languages of the earth? Would not the bible have been a
more helpful book if it had said: "Do not believe upon insufficient
evidence, for to do so is to prefer error to truth"? But there is not
a single bible that contains so daring a commandment. If a man may not
"Speak according to knowledge," he can not act according to conscience,
and a religion which denies to us these two rights instead of saving us,
destroys us body and soul.

The only difference, in respect to freedom of worship, between the New
Testament and the Old is that, while the New Testament postpones the
punishment of the free thinker until the day of judgment, the Old
Testament proceeds to "damn" him here and now:

_If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or
the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice
thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods... Thou shalt not
consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity
him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: but thou
shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to
death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone
him with stones that he die_. *

     * Deuteronomy xiii, 6-10.

It brings tears into my eyes to think of Europe and America upon their
knees, with blanched cheeks and trembling lips, before such a text. Why
retain so unjust and tyrannical a commandment in a book which the people
are asked to love and obey? And why translate such evil words into all
the tongues of man? What has happened to the European races--to the
descendants of the glorious Greeks and the proud Romans--that they can
fawn over a book that commands a mother to kill her child for not
believing as she does? Surely a blight of some kind must have fallen
upon both the heart and intellect of the Western world--else how explain
the gilt-edged bibles, containing these inhuman texts by the score,
which young and old carry in their pockets, and almost worship?

But the full import of this text is in the words we have printed in
italics: "_Neither shall thine eye pity him_." It seems as though the
being who gave the commandment feared that the natural affections might
lead fathers or mothers to hesitate dipping their hands in the blood
of their own sons and daughters; hence, the imperative, "Neither shall
thine eye pity him." Yes, the heart must turn into a stone, even as
the head must be stunned, before anyone can be a good Jew or a good
Christian.




PART III.




I. The First Chapter of the Bible

|MUCH depends upon what impression the first chapter produces upon our
minds. If we find the statements therein contained accurate, precise,
reasonable, original, of course, that fact will dispose us very
favorably toward the remainder of the book; but if, on the other hand,
the first chapter should appear to us as fantastical, fictitious,
legendary, contradictory, grotesque--made up of gossip borrowed from
here and there--naturally, we will be prejudiced against the chapters
which follow. If the first chapter is not true, the credit of the book
will certainly suffer. We may read the rest of the book as literature,
or from curiosity, but as the word of God--no!

Curious, is it not, that there is not a Christian scholar, or a
university man, who does not admit that the opening chapter of the bible
is legendary, that is to say, not true. Sir Oliver Lodge, who is one of
the champions of the church, in his reply to Professor Haeckel, refers
to the first chapter as "the old Genesis legend." Canon Farrar, who
was a shining light in the Anglican church, calls this same chapter
an allegory, that is to say, a fable. And the scholarly authors of
the Encyclopedia Biblica do not hesitate to deal with the story of
the creation in Genesis as mere gossip, borrowed from Assyrian and
Babylonian sources.

There is hardly a single educated Christian who accepts the first
chapter of the bible as anything more than tradition or fiction.

The dean of the University of Chicago, who is a Baptist clergyman,
recently said this in public print: "It is irreligious to teach that the
world was made in six days, when we know that it was not." But the first
chapter of the bible teaches that untruth, and for two thousand years
the churches, according to this Christian professor, have taught what
is not true. In the Ten Commandments, supposed to have been given by God
himself, and which are still read in all the churches, we are ordered to
keep the seventh day holy, "for in six days the Lord made the heaven and
the earth, etc." Yet, this Christian professor says this is not true.
What is still more puzzling is that this same professor who condemns
the first chapter as erroneous, accepts the second, or the third, or
the tenth, as the word of God! Even more astonishing than this is the
conduct of the religious teachers who from Monday to Saturday believe
in the scientific doctrine of evolution, but on Sunday repeat with the
_Westminster Catechism_ that "In six days the Lord made the heaven and
the earth." What shall we think of a religion that can make people so
callous as that?

Of course, a book or a man may make a number of statements of which some
are true and some are not, but the man or the book that makes statements
of which some are true and some false ceases to be different from any
other book or man. The position of the orthodox preachers, that the
bible is infallible from cover to cover, is very much more consistent
than the position of the Christian professor we have quoted, who says
that the first chapter of the bible is not the word of God, but the
second or the fifth is. No. If the first chapter of your "holy" book is
not divine, the whole book is human.

But to state, as these Christian scholars do, that what the bible says
in its first chapter is not true, is to make a very serious admission.
If Genesis is a legend, Jesus might be a legend, too, for both Genesis
and Jesus are in the same "holy" book. If the bible is unreliable when
it says the world was created, it may be equally unreliable when it says
Christ was incarnated. If it is not true that the universe was made in
six days, it may not be true either that Christ rose from the grave. Our
evidence for either statement is the bible. If the story of the fall of
man is a myth, the story of the "Lamb of God taking away the sins of
the world," may also be a myth. You can not part with Genesis and
keep Jesus. The moment a single stone is removed from the structure of
super-naturalism, the safety of the whole building is threatened. The
tragedy of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is inseparably related to
the tragedy of a dying god on Calvary. Christ is supposed to have shed
his blood because Adam's sin had brought a curse upon the whole human
race; and if Adam is a myth, what becomes of Christ?




The First Verse of the Bible

|BUT let us read the first verse of the first chapter:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Indeed! The text could not be more childish if it read: "In the
beginning God created the heaven and the moon." Is not the moon, or
the earth, a very small part of "the heaven" and included therein? Why
separate the earth, or the moon, from the rest of the universe? How
would it sound to say: "In the beginning God created the earth and the
Sandwich Islands?" or "the earth and a grain of sand"? But our next
comment will show that if the writer of this first verse of the
first chapter of the bible was pitiably ignorant of his subject, the
translator of it was even worse than ignorant--he was, I am sorry to
say, also a falsifier.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

I hold my breath! The very first verse shows deliberate manipulation and
tampering with the text. The Hebrew word which has been rendered into
English as "God," is "Elohim," which means gods, not God. The singular
of Elohim is Eloah--the dreaded one. But the Hebrew text reads Elohim,
not Eloah, that is to say, the plural and not the singular form is used.
Had the translators of the bible been free from sectarian prejudices,
the first verse in the bible would have read: "In beginning (not in
the beginning) the gods created the heaven and the earth." But the
priesthood, which had the bible in its custody, desired to prove by it
the dogma of monotheism. Yet, the first verse of the first chapter
of the bible proved polytheism--more than one god. Whereupon, the
translators quietly dropped the letter "s" from the word gods, and made
it to read God, thereby suppressing the fact that the supposed inspired
writer of the opening chapter of the book was a Pagan, with more gods
than the translators themselves believed in. It does not require much
effort to see what the consequences would have been had the first verse
of the bible been truthfully rendered into the modern tongues. "In
beginning the gods created the heaven and the earth" might have
relegated the bible to the limbo of other mythological compositions.
"The gods" would have made the exclusiveness of Christianity or Judaism
impossible. The history of European religions would have been different
had not that one letter "s" in the first verse of the first chapter of
the bible, and the very first time the deity is mentioned, been killed
by the translators. Of course, finding manipulation in the very first
verse, we will begin to suspect that other texts, too, have been
"doctored."

The very name of the book--Holy Bible--shows manipulation. By what, or
by whose authority is the book called "holy"? It is nowhere stated
in any of the manuscripts translated that the writings are "holy."
The words Holy Bible, then, represent nothing more than the opinion
or guess, or, at best, the judgment, of the English translators of the
book.

But there is a more serious example of manipulation on the title-page of
the Bible. Instead of admitting that the translation has been made from
Hebrew and Greek copies, not originals, for there are no originals (and,
therefore, there is no way of telling how true the copies are, since
they can not be compared with the originals), the words
_Translated out of the original Greek_ is inserted on the title-page
of the New Testament. This, I am compelled to say, is an indefensible
misstatement. The truth is that the originals, if they ever existed, are
lost. The bible as we have it is not quite two hundred and fifty years
old, and the most ancient manuscript in existence of the Old Testament
is not a thousand years old. This is the _Codex Petropolitanus_, which
is in the library of St. Petersburg. But where are the originals?
Why were they lost? Why were they "inspired" if they were not to be
preserved? But how can men who do not hesitate to state in print that
they possess the "original Greek" of the New Testament when they do not
and never have possessed it, pose as the moral teachers of the world? If
the translators of the bible wished to confine themselves to the truth,
instead of saying "Translated out of the original Greek, which is not
so, they would have said this on the title-page of their work:=

````A Collection of Writings

```Of Unknown Date and Authorship,

````Rendered Into English

``From Supposed Copies of Supposed Originals

````Unfortunately Lost.=

Rev. T. K. Cheyne, who is one of the contributors to the most scholarly
work recently produced by churchmen, * gives a number of instances of
deliberate manipulation of bible texts by the translators. "The Old
Testament," he writes, "is not altogether in its original form; it has
undergone not merely corruption, but editorial manipulation. This is
plainer in some books than in others; but nowhere, perhaps, is it more
manifest than in the Psalter." Two of his examples of mistranslation are
from the twenty-ninth psalm:

     * The Encyclopedia Biblica.


  Authorized Version.           Literal Translation.

     1. Give thanks unto             the Ascribe unto Yahwe, O ye
  Lord, O ye mighty, give unto       sons of Jerahmeel,
  the Lord glory and strength.       Ascribe unto Yahwe glory



     2. Give unto the Lord the      and strength.
  glory due unto his name;          Ascribe glory, O ye Ish-
  worship the Lord in the           maelites, unto Yahwe,
  beauty of holiness.               Worship Yahwe, Rehoboth
                                    and Cush.


  Compare also the first verse of the one hundred
  and thirty-ninth psalm with its literal translation as
  given by Doctor Cheyne :



    Authorized Version.            Literal Translation.

     1. O Lord thou hast          O Yahwe ! thou hast rooted
  searched me, and known me.      up Zarephath,

     2. Thou knowest my           It is thou that hast cut
  down-sitting and mine upris-    down Maacath;
  ing, thou understandest my      Ashhur and Arabia thou
  thoughts afar off.              hast scattered.
                                  All Jerahmeel thou hast
                                  subdued.

But one of the worst cases of tampering with "inspired" texts is to be
found in the New Testament. For nearly two thousand years the seventh
verse of the fifth chapter of the first epistle of St. John has been
saying this: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."

You may look high and low for that text in the Revised Version, but you
will not be able to find it there. That text has slipped out of, or has
been spirited away from, the bible, _revised_. After twenty centuries
of time, the forgery blushes to look criticism in the face. The smuggled
text for the trinity is still in the King James' bible, but the best
scholarship of the church, at least, is ashamed of it, and has dropped
it. What confidence can be placed upon men who wait for twenty hundred
years before they will admit that what the Rationalist has been saying
right along about the bible being a medley (to which from time to time
the sects made such additions as suited their interests or from which
they dropped whatever was prejudicial to their claims) is really true.

But let us return to the first verse of the bible: It is evident that
the writer of that verse believed in more than one god. This is shown by
other references to the subject in the same chapter. He makes Elohim, or
the gods, say, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Still
another text reads: "Behold the man has become as one of us," which is
also in keeping with the "gods" who created the heaven and the earth.

In reply to this criticism, it has been argued that the "we" or the
"us" and the "our" in this part of the bible prove the doctrine of the
trinity. The Catholic bible, in a footnote, plainly says so. Evidently,
John Milton was of the same opinion, for in Paradise Lost he says:=

```... Therefore the omnipotent

```Eternal father--thus to his Son audibly spake:

```Let us make now man in our image... *=

     * Paradise Lost, book VII.

But why should the words "us" and "our" prove that there are only three
persons in the Godhead? Why may not "we" mean four, or forty? Why only
three? It is really childish to see in "gods," or in "we," a proof of
only three gods, and no more.

Besides, the members of the trinity are all supposed to belong to the
male sex; but the "gods" in Genesis say that they created man in their
image, "male and female," the implication being that there were female
as well as male gods in the "we" of the first chapter of the bible. This
argument failing, the defenders of the bible make a second attempt to
explain away the letter "s" in gods: The writer of the first chapter
of the bible, they argue, wrote the plural form out of respect to the
deity. He used the "royal style" of speaking to express his veneration.
But if "gods" in the plural is the respectful title of the deity, why
did the translators use the disrespectful singular in English? Why did
they drop the plural for the singular in the translation? Or is it only
in Hebrew that the "royal style" must be observed? And is it conceivable
that a God who elsewhere in the bible says "I"--"I am a jealous God,"
and "I only am God," and "there is none other beside me"--would here,
and in the very first chapter, and on a most important subject, say
"_we_ gods" created "the heaven and the earth"?

There is no better way to prove the weakness of a cause than by trying
to uphold it by equivocal arguments. Men would never be arguing that
"we" means the trinity, or that it is the "royal style," etc., if
they had more cogent arguments to advance. It is only when we are hard
pressed that we resort to sophistry.

But let us read the second verse:

_The earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of
the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters._

Honestly, it is impossible to get any intelligible meaning out of such
a sentence. The earth was without _form?_ Was not the form of our globe
the same in the beginning as it is now? Can there be anything without a
form of some kind? The revisers of the authorized version of the bible,
wishing to remedy this ignorant statement, have dropped the word form,
and substituted in its place the word waste: "The earth was waste and
void." But "waste" and "void" mean practically the same thing. The
revisers have simply refused to translate the word which means "without
form." Of course, the revised version is not read in all the churches;
and in the authorized version, "the earth is without form." This
meaningless text has been made to support the idea that at one time
there was only chaos, out of which the creator evolved cosmos. Science,
however, has shown that nature was never in a state of chaos. The laws
of matter are the same to-day, and will be the same to-morrow--and they
have never been different. The law of gravitation, for instance, was as
potent and inevitable when the earth was younger as it is now. There was
just as much order, or to put it differently, nature was as orderly a
billion years ago as she is to-day. Everything happened according to
the inherent properties of matter and force then, as now, and as it
will happen to-morrow and forever. Chaos, then, is a figment of the
theological mind. To provide God with something to do, a chaos was
invented, which had to be tamed into a cosmos to keep the deity
occupied.

But the text proceeds to inform us that "darkness was upon the face of
the deep." This can not mean that the land itself was in the light;
it must mean that the entire earth, land and sea, were wrapped up in
darkness. All we have, then, in the beginning, is _darkness_, and God's
spirit moving about in the darkness. What a beginning! If God is light,
as we are told elsewhere in the bible, how could there be darkness where
he lived and moved about? God in the dark! or, God and the darkness! The
unknown! It is this Darkness which men have called God! And is it not
significant that because of this early association with darkness,
the gods have always preferred it to the light. In First Kings, sixth
chapter, fourth verse, we read that Solomon in building his temple "made
windows of narrow lights." The house was meant to be the dwelling place
of God, and care was taken to shut out the light, except what slipped in
through narrow windows. Modern church buildings show the same prejudice
against the light. God feels at home in the darkness! That was his first
home--when he moved about in the universal night. It is also plainly
stated in the bible that God prefers darkness for his abode.

_The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness._ *

     * I Kings viii, 12.

God! Darkness! They are joined together and no man has ever been able to
put them asunder.

But let us read on:

_And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the
light, that it was good._

Was that the first time the deity saw the light? Did he not know before
this that the light was good? If he really had been moving over the
face of the waters in total darkness for _oons_, who could blame him for
calling the light good? After he saw that the light was good, he divided
it from the darkness, and he called the light day, and the darkness he
called night, "and the evening and the morning were the first day." We
have now day and night--evening and morning; but we have as yet no
sun. Indeed, the sun is not created until the fourth day. How could
there be light without the sun? And why create a sun if light could be
had without it? The earth is in darkness or in the light according to
its relative position to the sun. By its revolution on its axis
the earth presents an ever shifting surface to the sun. The earth's
movements are caused by two contrary forces, the centripetal and the
centrifugal--the one tossing the earth like a ball into infinite space,
and the other tugging it toward the sun. The equilibrium of these forces
marks the diurnal course of the earth. Without the sun there would be
no revolution of the earth, and if the earth stood still, there could be
neither evening nor morning. And yet this verse states there was day and
night, morning and evening, before there was any sun. The idea that the
world is a progressive body, with the reins in the grip of those two
forces, the centrifugal and the centripetal, whipping her on, and yet
never letting her for a moment, even, to step out of the celestial
race-course, never entered the puny and prosaic minds of myth-makers.
Is there any reason why we should accept so impossible an explanation of
the origin of the universe, or of the relation of the earth to the sun,
when we have within our reach the stupendous revelations of science?

The creation of the sun, like the creation of the woman, seems to have
been an afterthought. Not only was there both light and darkness--a day
and a night--before there was any sun, but the sunless light was also
strong enough to produce vegetation, for the bible states that herbs and
trees appeared and flourished on the third day; that is to say,
vegetation arrived twenty-four hours before the sun. Not only does the
bible speak of the stars as if they were thrown in, "He made the stars
also," but the sun seems to have been thrown in, too--just as a grocer
weighing beans tosses into the already loaded scales a few additional
ones.

"The sun was made to give light upon the earth," say the Scriptures. But
the earth was already lit up by the "Let there be light, and there was
light," of the deity. The grass grew and the trees bore fruit after
their kind without any help whatever from the sun. But an excuse must be
provided for the existence of the sun: it was made "to give light upon
the earth." It never occurred to the infallible writer that the sun,
being one million five hundred thousand times bigger than the earth,
would give more light than the earth could use. What would we say to
the wisdom of creating a million million candle-power electric flame to
light a molecule of dust? Yet, not only the sun which is fifteen hundred
thousand times bigger than ourselves, but also the stars which are many
times bigger than the sun, and of which there are an infinite number,
were all created to dance attendance on this tiny dewdrop of a world,
trembling in infinite space. The man who originated this gossip about
sun and stars thought the firmament was a solid roof, just about so
large and so far from the earth. It was made of hammered plate, and was
equipped with windows which opened and shut, to let out or to stop
the rain. The stars, sun and moon were fastened to this upper roof and
worked to and fro "like sliding panels." Is it possible that people find
this infantile story of earth and sky inspiring? And is it not a pity
that we Americans, in this twentieth century, lack both the courage and
the frankness to speak our minds freely on the bible? If this Asiatic
book has done no other harm than to seal the lips of science from fear,
it has done enough to deserve all the criticisms that Rationalism has
leveled against it.




Theologians Discover That Six Days Means Six Periods

|THE defenders of the first chapter of the bible, in their attempt to
reconcile theology with science, have advanced the theory that the "six
days" of creation, instead of meaning six natural days of twenty-four
hours, means six indefinite periods of time. The object of this
explanation is to give the deity sufficient time to build his universe
in, and so bring the story of theology and science into something like
harmony. Of course, "six" meant six, and "days" meant days for nearly
two thousand years, and there was no idea of ever changing the meaning
of these words until the voice of Charles Darwin was heard in the
world. Then in haste the clergy, too, made a "great" discovery. Darwin
discovered the law of evolution; the clergy discovered that "six days"
in the bible means six _oons_, or eras of large proportions.

There is a semblance of truth in this contention of the theologians.
When, for example, we say in Washington's day, we mean, the century, or
the times Washington lived in. Or when we say "in the day of the Lord"
we do not mean a day of twenty-four hours, but a long and indefinite
period of time. But this defense breaks down completely when it is
remembered that the bible positively states the _number_ of days
required to make the world in. One day of indefinite duration would have
been enough if time were what God needed. Why "six" indefinite times?
The "six" before the word days is unanswerable proof that the "inspired"
writer meant just six days and nothing more. When the number of days
required for any purpose is stated, "days" can only mean one thing. If
we say Washington crossed the Delaware and drove the English out of the
State in "six days," there is absolutely no way of making the "six
days" mean anything else than six days. The number "six" is fatal to the
theological theory that days means eras. God was for forty days on Mount
Sinai; Jesus was in the wilderness for forty days; and he remained with
his disciples for forty days after his resurrection. If forty days means
forty days, six days can mean six indefinite periods of time only when
there is no other way of saving the creed.

Still another proof that the bible writers believed the universe was
called into existence in six natural days, is their phrase, "and the
evening and the morning were the first day," and "the evening and the
morning were the second day," and so on to the end of the week. We do
not need an evening and a morning to complete an indefinite era. And the
seventh day on which, in imitation of the Lord, we are supposed to rest
from our labors--is that, too, an indefinite period of time? Moreover,
to intimate that six days were not enough for an almighty god to create
the universe in would be nothing less than skepticism. It is expressly
stated in the bible that nothing "is too hard" for God; why, then, are
not six days of twenty-four hours enough? They _were_ enough, before
Darwin. To extend the six days into six periods is to make terms with
science, and when one begins to do that one has already lost his faith.
In the bible of India, God only _thought_ of creating a world, and
behold the world was. That way of creating is more becoming to a god.
He, who could create out of nothing, could create also without time. The
Hindu god is bigger than the Hebrew. The former only thinks the world
into being. The latter needs six eras, or indefinite time, for the same
piece of work. It is the Hindu who has faith.

Let me explain: If I were asked, for example, to tell the time according
to my watch, there is only one answer I could make, if I wished to tell
the truth. I am limited to one answer--one only. But if I did not care
to tell the time as I have it, there are a hundred things I could say
instead. A man can say many things that are not true, but only one thing
can he say if he wishes to answer a question honestly. The theologians
do not seem to want to tell the truth about the bible; hence they have
a hundred other things to say. There is no end to the dodges,
excuses, apologies, sophisms--the allegorical, metaphorical, spiritual
interpretations--they can resort to to avoid giving the one true answer
about the bible.

To the scientist "six days" means six days; to the theologian they mean
whatever the interests of his creed require them to mean. They may mean
one thing to-day and another to-morrow. If the theologian is addressing
missionary converts, "six days" means six days, and if he is addressing
scientists, he may make the "six days" mean six very long periods--as
long as his hearers desire. The first and last duty of the theologian
is to save his creed. He will tell the truth when it helps his creed;
he will suppress the truth when he thinks it will hurt his creed. He was
not ordained to be loyal to the truth; he was ordained to stand up for
the creed. "An oath, an oath, I have an oath in heaven," cried Shylock,
when he was asked to listen to the voice of humanity. Likewise, when
Reason appeals to the clergyman to tell the truth about the bible, he
answers: "An oath, an oath, I have taken an oath to defend the creed.
Shall I lay perjury to my soul?"

But Genesis is as unreliable on the question of the age of the earth as
it is on the way it came into existence. While it is not stated in the
bible just how old the earth is, by comparing and computing the various
dates it gives the precise biblical age of the earth may be arrived at.
According to the chronology of the bible, the earth is something near
six thousand years old. Of course, it may be that "years" in the bible
no more means years than "days" means days, but if they do, then the
bible is wrong again. It is now generally admitted by scientists that
the age of our planet runs into the millions. There is not a single
scholar who accepts the bible chronology seriously. According to Darwin,
who weighs his statements before he makes them, two hundred millions of
years would hardly be enough to bring about the multifarious forms of
life which now exist on the earth.

Historians have discovered traces of a civilization on the banks of the
Nile long before the mythical Adam opened his eyes in Eden. Egypt was
in blossom long before the forbidden tree was planted in paradise, and
archeology has proved the existence of man on this planet myriads of
years before Egypt reared her pyramids, or Athens her Parthenon. Out
of the caves of Germany, England and France have been dug the bones of
primitive man who saw the light of the sun and heard the swing of the
sea nearly two hundred and fifty thousand years ago. In a publication of
the Smithsonian. Institution, issued and paid for by the United States
Government, it is stated that there is enough proof to make the age
of the earth at least seventy millions of years. Every day, except on
Sunday, and everywhere, except in church, the United States affixes its
official seal, and gives full approval, to the teachings of science; but
on Sunday, and in church, the same United States officially bows down
and worships as the Word of God a book that makes all science a heresy
and a blasphemy. And we wonder that there is so much false profession in
the land!

Mr. Gladstone, a few years ago, tried to help the theologians defend
Genesis against the onslaughts of Darwinism. It was the object of his
encounter with Huxley to show that the bible account of creation was
as consistent with the known facts as the theory of evolution. In fact,
Genesis, according to Gladstone, was a sort of introduction to Darwin's
_Origin of Species_. In his admirable reply to Gladstone, Professor
Huxley gives the bible version of the origin of life and the world to
show the irreconcilable difference between revelation and science. Says
Professor Huxley:

_The bible teaches that this visible universe of ours came into
existence at no great distance of time from the present, and that
the parts of which it is composed made their appearance in a certain
definite order, in the space of six natural days, in such a manner
that on the first of these days light appeared; that on the second the
firmament or sky separated the waters above from the waters beneath the
firmament; that on the third day the waters drew away from the dry land,
and upon it a varied vegetable life, similar to that which now
exists, made its appearance; that the fourth day was signalized by the
apparition of the sun, the stars, the moon and the planets; that on
the fifth day aquatic animals originated within the waters; that on the
sixth day the earth gave rise to our four-footed terrestial creatures,
and to all variations of terrestial animals except birds, which had
appeared on the preceding day; and, finally, that man appeared upon the
earth, and the emergence of the universe from chaos was finished._

Continuing, Professor Huxley shows how the theologians try to wiggle out
of all that this implies by quietly changing the natural meaning of the
words used by the bible writers. He says:

_If we are to listen to many expositors of no mean authority, we must
believe that what seems so clearly defined in Genesis--as if very great
pains had been taken that there should be no possibility of mistake--is
not the meaning of the text at all. The account is divided into periods
that we may make just as long or as short as convenience requires. We
are also to understand that it is consistent with the original text to
believe that the most complex plants and animals may have been
evolved by natural processes, lasting for millions of years, out of
structureless rudiments. A person who is not a Hebrew scholar can only
stand aside and admire the marvelous flexibility of a language which
admits of such diverse interpretations._ *

     * Controverted Questions, page 100.




The Great Tragedy

|BUT it is when we come to read the bible story of the creation of man
that its unreliability becomes more manifest than ever. The story
of Adam and Eve seems to have been lifted bodily out of some foreign
document. This is evident from the fact that it is never referred to
again throughout the Old Testament. When the Jews were carried into
captivity they became familiar with the Babylonian legend of creation,
its Garden of Eden, the serpent, the forbidden tree, the fall of man,
etc. The name of the first man in the Babylonian story was _Adami_.

The belief that man was formed out of the earth is very ancient. Men saw
dead bodies return to dust, and, naturally enough, they inferred from it
that man was made out of the dust of the earth.

In the Jewish story, as related in the second chapter of Genesis, the
first man was a bachelor, and if he had liked that sort of life, woman,
in all probability, would never have been created. It is suggested
in the story that God asked Adam to choose a companion from among the
animals, which were made to pass before him, that he might name them,
and if possible select from among them a companion for himself:

_And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to
every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an helpmeet
for him._ *

Adam was lonely:

_And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept:
and he took one of his ribs... and the rib which the Lord God had taken
from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man._ **

     * Genesis ii, 20.

     ** Ibid. 21-22.

The story of the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, on
which the whole theological system of the churches is built, is so crude
that it can not stand any kind of an examination. Adam and Eve, for
instance, are warned against the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil. But, really, they did not have to eat of this tree to be able
to tell good from evil, for they already knew the difference. When Adam
saw God, his maker, did he not love and honor him? If so, he knew what
was good. Did he not love his garden home? If so, he could tell what
was good. And did he not rejoice when Eve appeared before him with the
freshness of beauty in her cheeks and the sparkle of love in her eyes?
If so, Adam knew what was bliss. What was the object, then, of telling
Adam that he must not learn to distinguish good from evil? Did not Adam
and Eve enjoy their daily walks and musings? Did they not see that the
trees and the flowers springing up at their feet were fair to look upon?
Were they not able to smell the fragrance that came with each passing
zepyhr, or to feast on the luxury of shade and color that greeted their
eyes? Did not the song of the birds wake melodies in their souls? Surely
they were not wooden beings without either feeling or taste; yet, if
they could feel and choose, they certainly knew what was good and what
was not good before they ate of the magical tree in Eden.

Again, were not Adam and Eve made in the image of God? How, then, could
they be ignorant of good and evil? If they could not tell the difference
between good and evil, or between God and the devil, in what sense were
they created moral beings? A man really created in the likeness of God
does not have to eat of a tree before he can tell right from wrong.

God said to Adam: "For on the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die." That is conclusive evidence that Adam knew good from evil
before he ate of the forbidden tree; for he feared death. He must have
known that it was a terrible thing to die; he must have known enough
to prefer life to death, else he could not have been scared by such a
punishment.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, _thou shalt not eat
of it_." This was not only a superfluous commandment, but also one that
could under no conceivable circumstances be obeyed. How could any one
be prevented from acquiring knowledge? To live is to learn. Why did God
give Adam eyes and ears if he was not to see or hear? But to see and
hear is to compare, and to compare is to learn. Memory retains what
the eyes and the ears have communicated to it, and thus is born
experience--the universal teacher. To give a man a pair of lungs, and
then to tell him he shall not breathe, would not be more unreasonable
than to give a man organs, senses, brains--to make him in the image
of God--and then to menace him with instant death if he should acquire
knowledge. To give an impossible commandment is to desire its violation.

The apologists of the bible say that God was only trying Adam's
character, as he tried Abraham's faith when he ordered him to sacrifice
his son Isaac. But why try Adam with the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil? Why not with some other tree? And why try him with an
impossible commandment? The first requisite of a trial is that it be
fair. Was it fair to deny to living and growing minds, "divinely" made,
the acquisition of experience? Is it fair to deny to one athirst, the
truth? And for whose benefit was the trial? God certainly must have
known in advance how Adam would behave under the circumstances; and as
for Adam, how could he act otherwise than as God had foreordained? Let
the truth be told: the bible deity was only seeking a pretext to damn
the first man he ever created and to curse the only world he ever made.
And this, that the clergy may be able to declaim, "God so loved the
world that he gave his only begotten son to die for it"!

If God meant only to test Adam's loyalty to his creator, how explain the
following text:

_And the Lord God said, Behold the man has become as one of us, to know
good and evil: and now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the
tree of life, and eat, and live forever; therefore the Lord God sent him
forth from the Garden of Eden.... So he drove out the man_. *

     * Genesis iii, 22-24.

I am sorry, but that text places God in a poor light. The tree was
forbidden, to prevent Adam from becoming a higher being. The "Good God"
was angry because man had become like one of us. And "he drove out the
man" for an equally envious reason: "Lest he put forth his hand, and
take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" The "Lord God"
did not desire man to be immortal--that is why he "drove" him out of
Paradise, and to make the fall of man sure, to prevent his ever rising
to "divine" heights, the Lord God stationed guards with flaming swords
at the gates of Eden to beat back man from "the way of the tree of
life." And is this the God who so loved the world that he gave his only
begotten son to die for it? Had he been more honest with Adam the crime
of the crucifixion might have been prevented.

It is one of the principal tenets of all the churches that man was
created immortal, and that but for Adam's disobedience there would have
been no death in the world and Paradise would have remained in man's
possession forever. But there is not the shadow of a foundation in the
story as told in the bible for such an inference. The bible teaches the
very opposite of what the churches hold. Adam is driven from Paradise to
_prevent_ him from becoming immortal by eating also of the tree of
life. If God really wished the happiness of nan, he would, instead
of warning him against magical trees, have instructed him in the things
that preserve life and promote joy. He would have told Adam and Eve how
to love one another, to moderate their desires, and to labor daily for
beauty as well as for bread. He would have warned them, not against the
tree of knowledge, but against the cunning, crafty serpent, of whose
existence he leaves them in utter ignorance. If the bible God were
really the friend of man, he would never have pitted two inexperienced
children like Adam and Eve against Satan, the Lord of hell, and a match
for God Almighty himself. And in the hour of danger the Lord was not
there to help his little ones! He left them alone with the fiend who
plays with loaded dice! By whose permission did the devil make his
appearance in Paradise? And was there a devil before Adam fell? What a
story! Created and concealed in Eden, there was a devil, a monster,
who springs upon the first human pair, and they bleed to death in his
clutches; and "the Lord God" does not appear on the scene until after
the devil has retired. And this is the being whom we must call "Our
Father"! We are unable to find in the bible either a paradise or a
father. We have been taught to believe that where the devil is there is
hell; the devil was in the Garden of Eden, therefore, the Garden of
Eden could not have been truly a Paradise. And had God really been a
"father," he would never have forgotten to warn his children against the
serpent and his deadly sting.

But the story as told in Genesis is more creditable to the Evil One than
to "the Lord God." The devil told the truth to Eve when he assured her
that "In the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye
shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." His statement squares with the
facts. He did not deceive them. Nor did he coax, or urge them to eat of
the fruit of the tree. Adam and Eve were left to do as they pleased. The
devil did not threaten them with dire consequences if they refused to
obey his word. No attempt was made to scare or "stampede" them into
plucking the forbidden fruit. All he did was to tell them exactly what
would happen if they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge; and then
he retired. Let us place in parallel columns the words spoken by the
serpent, or the devil whom he is supposed to have personified, and those
of the Lord God:


     The Lord God said :          And the serpent said :


  But of the tree of the          Ye shall not surely die.

  knowledge of good and evil,     For God doth know that in

  thou shalt not eat of it: for   the day ye eat thereof, then

  in the day that thou eatest     your eyes shall be opened, and

  thereof thou shalt surely       ye shall be as gods, knowing

  die.*                           good and evil. **


     * This was spoken to Adam alone, for as yet Eve was not
     created. See Genesis ii, 16, 17.

     **  Ibid. iii, 5.

Which of the two speakers told the truth? Adam and Eve did not die on
the day they ate of the tree, as God had said they would--Adam lived to
be nine hundred years old--and their eyes were opened to know good and
evil, just as the devil had predicted. We have already anticipated and
answered the argument that when God said they would die on the day they
ate of the forbidden tree, he meant they would become mortal. They were
not immortal before they had tasted of the fruit, since God expelled
them from Eden to prevent them from eating also of the tree of life and
becoming immortal.

To few of the readers of the bible has it ever occurred that the first
commandment God ever gave to man practically made the acquisition of
knowledge a crime. The truth is that the first commandment of every
revealed religion is a "Thou shalt not know." According to Genesis,
the Lord offered a Paradise to man on condition that he steer clear
of knowledge. There has been considerable discussion as to the precise
location of the Garden of Eden. But if we do not know where the
Garden of Eden was, we know very well what it was. The Garden of Eden
was--Ignorance. This is the Paradise which the revealed religions offer
to man. To know is to be expelled from Paradise. After God had placed
Adam in Paradise, that is to say, in a state of ignorance, he said
to him: "Thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge,"
threatening him at the same time with death on the day that he ate
of the fruit of that tree. Everything else was permitted save the
acquisition of knowledge. On the day that man opened his eyes he lost
the paradise of the gods--Ignorance!

It has been customary to trace modern scepticism, or free inquiry, to
the eighteenth century, or to the Renaissance; but in reality modern
thought began with Adam in the Garden of Eden--assuming for the time
being the correctness of the narrative. Man broke the very first
commandment the gods ever gave, "Thou shalt not know," and by so doing
he became himself a menace to the gods. That is very interesting. It was
not man who died on the day the fruit of knowledge was plucked; it was
the gods. "Take care!" said man to God. "Take care! The day on which I
eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge thou shalt die!" It is now
admitted by the foremost biblical scholars that there are really two
different stories of the creation of man in the first and second
chapters of the bible. The universe is called into being by _Elohim_ in
the first; while _Jahve_ is the name of the creator in the second.
Another important difference between the two accounts of the creation is
that in the one, man appears before the deity has completed the creation
of the heaven and the earth; while in the other man is the last thing
God creates. It will be observed also that there is not a word said in
the second account about man being made in the image of God, or of his
being created male and female; while there is nothing in the first
account about a garden or a forbidden tree. On the contrary, in the
earlier story every tree is given for "meat" unto the man and the woman,
who were created at the same time, and not the one out of a rib of the
other, and at a later time, as is related in the second account. In the
first, or Elohistic story, God blesses Adam and Eve and commands them to
"be fruitful and multiply"; in the second, or Jehovistic story,
child-bearing is not a blessing, but a curse pronounced upon the woman
for having eaten of the forbidden fruit. Eve has no offspring until she
is expelled from Paradise in the second version, while in the first,
Adam and Eve are commanded from the start to "multiply and replenish the
earth."

But why are both stories published? In all probability, to satisfy both
the _Elohistic_ and _Jehovistic_ factions. It is also probable that the
different accounts are the work of different compilers or collectors
of news. The bible gives many signs of being a miscellany of floating
reports and rumors, or "they says," picked up here and there, and put
together very loosely. Nor should we be surprised at the differences
between the Elohistic and Jehovistic writers, for they are not more
hopelessly at variance with each other than are the evangelists who tell
the story of Jesus.




II. Taboo and Totem.

|WHAT is the most probable explanation of the Garden of Eden story,
whether in its Babylonian or Hebrew form? To answer this question and
also to help explain many of the institutions and ceremonial observances
in the bible, it will be necessary to acquaint ourselves with the
meaning of certain words, such as taboo, totem and magic. The word taboo
has come into the modern language from the Polynesian, and it means
forbidden. And yet there is a fundamental difference between a thing
which is forbidden in the English sense of that word, and a thing which
is taboo in the sense which primitive races attached to that word. For
example, when we see a notice which reads, "Passengers are forbidden
to stand on the platform of the train," or "Smoking not allowed in the
dining-car," the object of the interdiction is in either case perfectly
plain. We know why the act in question is prohibited. There is no
suggestion of mystery about it. A thing that is taboo, however, is so
for a reason which is undiscoverable. The bible forbids the eating of
pork. Why? The theologians try to explain that the prohibition against
pork had a sanitary motive. Such an answer is tantamount to an admission
on their part that they have not studied the bible with any care at all.
To say that Moses objected to pork on sanitary grounds would be about as
reasonable as to say that he commanded the extermination of Gentiles on
humanitarian grounds. Yet many fall into the mistake of supposing that
it was the fear of leprosy, or the thread-worm, which induced the Jewish
legislator to place swine's flesh under a ban. To see how inadequate
this explanation is, all we have to do is to remember that in all the
bible there is not a single disease of any kind which is caused by
the eating or the drinking of anything. Disease in the bible is
supernatural. Meats or vegetables, the observance or neglect of dietary
and sanitary laws, have absolutely nothing to do with the coming or
going of a pestilence. Health, in the bible, has no more to do with
cleanliness of the body, with the use of soap, or moderation and
prudence in eating and drinking, than success in war, or prosperity in
life has with personal merit or effort. It is God who sends both health
and sickness, famine or the plague, as he sends manna from the clouds
and quails from the sea. To win a battle the people had only to stand
still, and see the Lord fight for them. Not until the Greeks appeared in
history was it discovered that health and sickness had natural causes,
and that the gods had nothing whatever to do with them. What, then, is
the explanation of the interdict against swine's flesh in the bible?
Before answering that, let us look at a few other examples, of taboo in
the Old Testament.

The name of God, like swine's flesh, was taboo. "That shalt not take
the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (the _in vain_ is a rationalist
explanation which was affixed to the text by a later hand). Now, why
was the name of God forbidden? In all probability it was to prevent
the stranger or the enemy from calling upon their God; it explains the
unwillingness of the Jews to share Jahve with the rest of the world. But
it is as much a guess to say why the name of God was taboo, as it is
to give a reason for the ecclesiastical ban against the hog. The
commandments of science are intelligible; the dogmas of religion are
dark. Why do we have to believe in the trinity, the virgin birth, etc.,
in order to be saved? It is a mystery.

Another taboo was the Ark of the Covenant. This was a wooden box,
supposed to be the retreat of the deity. To touch this wooden chest
meant instant death. Uzzah was instantly killed for trying to steady
the ark in transit, "for the oxen shook it." * And, on another occasion,
over fifty thousand people were massacred "because they had looked into
the ark of the Lord." ** Why destroy "fifty thousand and three score
and ten men" for such a trifle? If it were because they disobeyed the
priest, was it not the duty of the priest to give the reason which made
touching or looking into a box a deadly crime? But in religion to
ask for an explanation is also taboo. The things of religion are not
supposed to be understood. To understand is taboo.

     * II Samuel vi, 6.

     ** I Samuel vi, 19.

A more important example of things forbidden without reason or rhyme is
the Sabbath. The prevailing interpretation is that out of compassion for
man and beast the deity ordained a day of rest. But the truth is that
pity for the laboring man or the animal had positively nothing to do
with the institution of "holy moons" and Sabbaths. It is the stress of
modern thought that leads priests and rabbis to explain the Sabbath on
Rationalist grounds. To begin with, oriental races were not so exceeding
fond of work as to necessitate a divine fiat to compel them to take a
rest. If anything, they needed to be urged and scourged to work at all.
They were only too willing to let the Lord do everything for them. The
ideal of the oriental believer was to be "like the lilies of the field,
which toil not, neither do they spin." * What need was there for the
bible people to invent machinery, to build factories, or to acquire
science, when a miracle-working God was ever at their elbow."_O, to be
Nothing, Nothing_," is to this day, one of the hymns in the churches.

     * The Sermon on the Mount.

In the twenty-second chapter of Deuteronomy it is forbidden "to plough
with an ox and an ass together." The theologians quote the text to prove
that kindness to animals was the motive of this ordinance, as kindness
to man was, of the Sabbath. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Why, then, is it unlawful to yoke an ass with an ox? It is another one
of the mysteries of religion.

We have only to read on to learn that motives of humanity, justice or
economy play no part at all in these ordinances. "Thou shalt not sow thy
vineyard with divers seeds," says the same chapter. Surely this was not
from any consideration of compassion for the soil or the seed. And when
the bible again says: "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sort, as
of woolen and linen together," is it for sanitary or economic reasons
that the commandment was given? When again we read, "Ye shall eat no
manner of fat, of ox or of sheep," etc., it surely was not for any
hygienic reason that fat was prohibited, for it goes on to say that "the
fat belongs to the Lord." But why should the Lord be so jealous of fat?
It is no more possible to understand the ordinance against fat, or mixed
seed sowing, or garments of mingled yam, and a thousand other similarly
puerile edicts in the Old Testament, than it is to understand why it is
necessary to sprinkle a man with water, or rub him with oil, before he
can be a good Christian. Why an ox and an ass should not plough together
is just as much a mystery as transubstantiation. The English and the
American bible societies are translating these Hebrew and Christian
riddles and distributing the book at the rate of about twenty million
copies a year, costing an amount of money, energy and time, which if
devoted to the advancement of health alone would do more toward making
this earth a paradise for man, now and here, than all the mysteries and
miracles of religion.

But let us not forget to explain the origin of the ban against the
Sabbath, or the seventh day. It will surprise the Sabbatarian to learn
that originally work was forbidden on the seventh day of the week for
the same reason that many in our day object to start on a journey or
on an enterprise of any kind on a Friday, or on the thirteenth of the
month. The prejudice against Friday and the number "13" is based on
the belief that both the day and the number are evil. Why? Nobody knows
exactly. In the same way, the seventh day was considered by all Semitic
races as an evil day--a day of disaster, unpropitious and accursed. The
fear of the savage for the seventh day was as foolish as our fear of
Friday, or of the number "13." But we laugh at our own prejudice about
Friday and regard the savage's awe of the seventh day as inspired.

As already stated, the seventh day was taboo because it was supposed to
be accursed. No work was to be done on that day, not because the work
would spoil the day, but because they feared the day would spoil the
work. Even in our day, if a man goes fishing on a bright Sunday, and is
drowned, or if children go picnicking on the Sabbath, and are run over,
the usual comment is that they lost their lives, not for fishing or
picnicking, but for doing these perfectly innocent things on a certain
day. Sunday is an evil day--for fishing, or for recreation of any kind.
On the Sabbath, the safest thing, according to the bible, is to stay
indoors. It is a bad day for pleasure, and a bad day for labor. There
is only one thing that is safe on the Sabbath--going to church. Do we
wonder now that children hated the Sabbath, or that a gloom fell upon
both young and old on that lugubrious day?

But this supposedly evil day in time came to be regarded as "holy." I
say supposedly evil, because there are no evil days, even as there are
no "holy" days. One day is like another; it is superstition that makes
a certain day, or place, or number, holier than another. And we have a
right to be suspicious of a religion that thinks more, for example, of
the number 3, or 7, or 40, or of the first or seventh day of the week
than of other days or numbers. One of the motives which, according to
the bible, actuated the building of a temple for Jehovah was to observe
more solemnly "the Sabbaths and the new moons of the Lord." * The new
moons! Why is a "new moon" more virtuous or talismanic than a full moon?
What has righteousness to do with "new moons" or full moons? Why do we
have to spend millions of dollars every year to send missionaries abroad
to teach them the observance of "Sabbaths and new moons"? I am aware
that the missionaries omit the "new moons," but is it not also in the
Word of God? And what right has the missionary to drop anything from the
Word of God? Has he forgotten the awful warning of the closing words of
the bible? "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book
of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,"
etc. ** But there is not a sect that has not both taken from, and added
to, the Word of God. We tremble to think what will happen to them. "God
shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." *** And
what could be worse than the plagues mentioned in the bible? ****

     *  II Chronicles ii, 4.

     **  Revelation xxii, 19.

     ***  Revelation xxii, 18.

     ****  One of the rather mild plagues is described in
     Leviticus xxvi, 22-29: "I will also send wild beasts among
     you, which shall rob you of your children.... And ye shall
     eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your
     daughters." Twenty million copies a year of this book are
     sold!

As a day of rest and recreation, of intellectual, moral and aesthetic
culture and pleasure, Sunday will always be one of the dearest
institutions of civilization. But as already explained, humanitarian
or ethical motives had no share at all in the making of the
Jewish-Christian Sabbath. Would the clergy, for instance, consent to
have any other day than Sunday observed as "holy"? Would they have the
courage to call Tuesday or Thursday the Sabbath of the Lord, sanctified
and set apart from all eternity? If not, the inference is inevitable
that what they are principally interested in is the day--the taboo--and
not the rest and profit which may be derived from quitting work on a
given day of the week.

Among the primitive races a thing was taboo either because it was
supposed to be "unholy" or because it was supposed to be "holy." A
Catholic must not touch the sacraments because they are "holy," and
the Jew must not touch swine's flesh because it is "unholy." In the one
case, as in the other, it is a "thou shalt not." Why the touch of the
fingers should defile the sacraments but not the touch of the palate or
the lips; or why swine's flesh should mar one's character or standing
before the community, is not explained because it can not be explained.
Theology is a collection of enigmas. The less the people understand
their religion the more they believe in it. A taboo is not meant to be
understood; it is only meant to be obeyed. The Babylonians, from whom
the Hebrews got their Sabbath, refrained from work on that day because
they considered it an evil day; we refrain from work on that day because
we think the day too sacred for work. It is not at all strange that
the reason for a given taboo, being no more than a whim, should in the
course of time change. The "thou shalt not" remains; the why does not
matter much, because the why belongs to reason, and religion is a matter
of faith.




The Totem

|TO show further how the unholy becomes, in time, the holy, or vice
versa, let us glance at another barbaric institution of the past, that
of the totem. The word taboo, as already explained, is Polynesian in
origin; the word totem has come to us from the American Indian. Totem is
a more difficult word to translate into modern thought. The most
popular definition I could give to it would be to say that a totem is a
"mascot." And yet, it is very much more. To savage tribes a totem was
an object, more frequently an animal, which was sacred to the particular
tribe that had identified itself with it. The thing, or the plant, or
the beast thus selected, became an emblem, badge or bond of union. It
served also as a sort of password by which the members of the tribe were
recognized, and a center around which the clan grouped itself. To the
totem they looked for preservation against famine, war and annihilation
as a tribe. The totem was the soul of the tribe--the tribe in essence.
The golden-rod is the national flower of America, the lily is upon the
shield of France, the shamrock is Irish, the world over; in some
such sense, only meaning very much more, was the totem to our savage
ancestors.

Now we are in a position to guess at least why the bible forbids swine's
flesh. Solomon Reinach, a distinguished Jewish scholar, and member of
the French Academy, says that the boar was the totem of the Jew long
before Moses appeared on the scene. * The totem was protected by a
taboo, and, therefore, to eat it was a national crime. To destroy one's
totem was a sacrilege and a blasphemy, punishable by death. They looked
upon the man who ate his totem with more abhorrence than we would feel
toward a fellow countryman who insulted his flag. Here, then, we have
two counter currents; the Sabbath, beginning as an evil day, becomes
"holy," while the hog, once a totem, an object of reverence, a god,
degenerates into an unclean beast. Yet the one, as much as the other, is
as taboo as ever.

     * Orpheus, Solomon Reinach, page 27: "Les Juifs pieux
     s'abstiennent de manger du porc, parce que leurs lointains
     ancestres, cinq on six mille ans avant notre ere, avaient
     pour totem le sanglier."

The "thou shalt not labor on the Sabbath day," and the "thou shalt not
eat swine's flesh," remain the same, though the why is shifted from the
"because it is unholy" to a "because it is holy," in the case of the
Sabbath; and from the "because it is holy" to a "because it is unholy,"
in the case of the hog. In the meantime, it remains as true as ever that
there is nothing either "holy" or "unholy" about a hog or a day. Why was
the seventh day cursed or blest? Why, of all the animals, was the
hog selected, first to be adored and then to be abhorred? While many
interesting reasons could be suggested, the truth is that, like the
majority of religious rites and dogmas, both taboo and totem are
impenetrable mysteries. When, in the Merchant of Venice, Shylock is
asked why he covets a pound of that merchant's flesh, "nearest his
heart," with a toss of his head, and his eyes afire, he replies: "It is
my humor." * And if we were to ask Jehovah why swine's flesh is taboo,
or why the seventh day is "holy," or why the priest under penalty of
death must carry a golden bell and a pomegranate upon the hem of
his robe, ** or why the man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not
circumcised shall be cut off from his people ***, or why "Whosoever
cometh any thing near unto the tabernacle of the Lord shall die," **** or
why it is a deadly crime to peep into a wooden box, or yoke an ass with
an ox, the answer would be the same: "It is my humor."

     *  Act iv, Scene I.

     **  Exodus xxviii, 34-43.

     ***  Genesis xvii, 14.

     ****  Numbers xvii, 13.

Nothing could be more convincing that humor and not reason dictated the
commandments in the bible, than the large number of taboos, the neglect
of which was invariably visited with death. If a man kindled a fire in
his kitchen on the Sabbath, or picked up sticks, he "shall surely be
put to death"; if he forgot to observe the feast of the passover, or ate
leavened bread during the passover, or ate the fat, or the blood of the
animals he slaughtered for food, he "shall surely be put to death"; if
a man made a holy ointment, or perfumery, or if he offered sacrifices
without the help of a priest, or killed his cattle without giving a
part of it to the priest, he "shall surely be put to death." If a man
entered the house of the dying, or touched a pig or a dead animal, and
did not pay the priest to absolve him from his guilt, he "shall surely
be put to death."

The Old Testament is a veritable deathtrap. On every page, and behind
every sentence, almost, there is a trap. It takes a very clever dodger
to escape falling into one of them. Even Moses was caught and smashed in
a trap. Out of all the people who left Egypt for the promised land, all
but two perished in the wilderness because of some infringement of the
ceremonial law. What a failure! Even as Eden, offered for a paradise
to man, became the tomb of the human race, the promised land became the
cemetery of the people who sacrificed their homes for it. Such is the
humor of the gods!

But let us speak of another totem. The Catholics eat fish on Friday. Not
one out of a million Catholics knows why fish is preferred to meat on
a certain day in the week. The fish, too, was at one time a totem in
Syria. The early Christians, being largely from that part of the country
where the fish was sacred, made a place for it in their new faith. In
the writings of the Christian Fathers, Jesus is often called the Big
Fish, and his disciples the little fish. Upon many of the ancient
Christian tombstones there was engraved a fish. Tertullian, a shining
light in the early church, speaks of his converts as "the fishes born
in the waters of baptism." In the early communion service, the fish
represented the divine elements. To this day the fish, an ancient Syrian
totem, holds its sway not only upon Christians, but also upon the Jews.
An orthodox Jew, no matter how poor, must have his fish every Friday
evening. *

     * Orpheus, Solomon Reinach, page 29.

But how did people come to eat their totem? It was explained above that
swine's flesh is taboo, because of the sacredness of the boar to an
ancient Semitic tribe; if the fish was also sacred, and protected by a
"thou shalt not," or a taboo, how did it come to be an article of diet?
Under exceptional circumstances all primitive tribes ate their totems,
or their gods. In the time of famine or war they fed on the sacred beast
for self-preservation--before which all other laws break down. Moreover,
it was their belief that by eating their totem they acquired its virtues
and strength. To partake of the qualities of the totem, and to become
more closely identified with it--made one with it--it was deemed
necessary on solemn occasions to eat it. Eating the totem came to be,
in time, a religious rite. Of course, it was with many regrets and
apologies that the savage slew his totem for food. He mourned over
it and blamed himself for the death of his god. On the other hand, as
intimated above, he argued that the only way he could get into a closer
communion with his totem, and become a partaker of his virtues, he must
eat of his flesh and drink of his blood. The Christian communion service
is the modern version of an ancient rite. On Sundays, and with much
mourning, the Christian crucifies again his totem, to eat of his body,
broken for him on the cross, and to drink of his blood, shed for the
remission of his sins. Is it not wonderful how one superstition is like
another?

The Holy Ghost, one of the members of the trinity, is represented in
the form of a dove, because, like the fish and the boar, the dove was
another ancient totem. Whenever an animal, or a tree, or any other
object, is made to represent the deity, as the dove represents the Holy
Ghost, or the fish the Son of God, or the bull, or the eagle Zeus, we
may be quite sure that at one time these animals were gods. Gradually,
from being regarded as gods, they came only to represent them. When the
Holy Ghost, now and then, takes on the form of a dove, it goes to prove
that the Holy Ghost started as a dove--the dove was the Holy Ghost.
And just as races of men sometimes fall back to the level of their
ancestors, the gods go back to the dove, and the fish, and the boar,
whence they came. The gods, too, like their religions, die of the same
disease--that of being found out.

The point which it has been the object of the discussion on taboos and
totems to establish is that the laws and commandments in the bible, as
well as the doings attributed to the deity represent, not Reason, but
humor. Whim plays the chief rôle in the divine drama. Noah is ordered to
take with him into the ark, "of every clean beast" seven pairs; "and of
beasts that are not clean, two pairs, the male and the female." But no
instruction is given him as to what makes a beast clean or unclean, or
how Noah is to tell the one from the other. Nor is it explained why a
certain number of unclean beasts are to be saved, while all the unclean
of the human race are to be drowned. The only answer we would get from
the "Lord God," if we asked him for an explanation, would be, "It is my
humor."

And why should any animals be preserved at all? If the deity could by
a word of his mouth cause all forms of life, vegetable and animal, to
spring forth out of the ground; if by a mere "Let there be light," he
could create light--why should he trouble himself about packing the ark
with specimen animals to preserve the species? And why was it necessary
to rain for forty days, to drown a world which it took him about six
days to create out of nothing? But we are reasoning, and in religion,
reason is taboo.

How different is science! The bible is a book of puzzles; science is
common sense. The bible treats of forms and ceremonies--of holy water,
holy oils, holy wafers and of forbidden trees and animals. Science, on
the other hand, explains the inexorable laws of nature, a knowledge
of which, and obedience to which, makes for life and happiness. Let us
rejoice that science has broken for us the spell of superstition.




III. The Bible and Magic

|STILL another word, the explanation of which would greatly help us
to understand the bible, is the word magic. A magician, according to
Voltaire, is a man who pretends to possess the secret of doing what
nature can not do. Another Frenchman defines magic as the "strategy
of the savage." There is not very much difference between these two
definitions. Magic is the weapon, or the art, or the science, of the
savage against the powers of nature. The magician claims to be able to
"go one better" than nature, or to bring nature to terms. If there is a
drought, the magician offers to compel rain from the stubborn skies; if
the plague is upon the land, the magician bids it steal away; if wild
beasts attack his hut, the magician throws a spell over them and makes
them harmless. Fire will not burn, water will not drown, the grave can
not hold its prey, and even the gods become helpless at a word from the
magician. Magic, in a sense, is the coup d'etat of the savage.

When one country is at war with another, the best generalship consists
in finding out the tactics of the enemy with a view of beating him at
his own game. Likewise, the aim of the magician is to steal the secret
of the gods and then play the part of a god not only better than the
gods themselves, but against them as well. Is not man wonderful!

In one sense, magic is science in the making. But while science seeks
to control nature through knowledge, magic resorts to spells, charms,
incantations and concoctions. In other words, magic is dishonest
science.

Now, much as I regret to say it, the bible is more than tainted with
this kind of science. Not a word is there in the bible about studying
the laws of nature, for study is not necessary where there is magic.
The real thing, science, is made superfluous by the imitation
article--magic. Thus the bible, by its preference for a false
science, postponed, if it did not succeed in defeating altogether, the
intellectual evolution of man.

Scarcely anything happens in the bible in a natural way. Miracles are so
many, and so frequent, that there is practically no nature in the bible.
The dead arise, the rivers flow backward, the sea turns into dry land,
sticks change into serpents, the axe head floats on the water, walls
and fortifications fall at the sound of a trumpet, animals talk, virgins
become mothers, sun and moon are arrested and then set free, and a
universe is produced out of nothing, with as little ado as a magician
requires to pull a rabbit out of his sleeve.

We are in the land of magic. Nature is suspended, and the supernatural
is in full swing.

I read the other day of a country farmer who went to see a celebrated
conjurer perform his wonders. He saw the "wizard" pick money out of the
air, shoot watches into people's pockets, change copper into gold and
silver, and perform a hundred other equally marvelous feats. As he was
leaving the charmed presence of the juggler, he expressed his surprise
that so resourceful a man should be under the necessity of giving
performances to earn a living. He could not understand why a man whose
touch turned everything to gold should collect dimes at the box office.
Of course, the explanation is perfectly simple: The wonders which the
conjurer performs are sham wonders. In the same way, the miracles in
the bible never help anybody nor accomplish anything because they are
sham miracles. The bush which bums, and yet is not consumed, is a sham
bush--the bush is not a bush, and the fire is not real fire. The few
loaves and fishes with which Jesus fed a great multitude were sham
loaves and fishes, and the multitude which, though hungry, could not
exhaust the food, was a sham multitude. Sham bread, sham multitude,
sham hunger! Such are the wonders of the conjurer or the magician in or
outside the bible. If Jesus really possessed the power of multiplying
a few loaves into an exhaustless supply of bread, why is there then any
poverty in the world?

Moreover, the miracles--which are as thick on the pages of the bible as
blackberries on a bush--what good did they do to the people for whose
benefit they were performed? If the Egyptians perished in their homes,
the Jews perished in the wilderness; if the Egyptians lost their slaves,
the Jews lost their sons and daughters--lost themselves. What good did
all the miracles performed in their behalf do for them? Their city,
Jerusalem, was set on fire, their homes pillaged, their children put to
the edge of the sword, over and over again. What benefit did they derive
from the ten thousand miracles lavished upon them? And look at the
Greeks! Not one miracle did Jehovah perform for them. Yet they rose to
be the masters of the world, and are still by their worth and genius,
the teachers of mankind.

The most unexpected and impossible things are said and done in the
bible. When Abraham was bom, his father, Terah, was seventy years old.
In every other book, as the father grows older, the son, too, would
advance in years. But in the bible, while Terah grows older, Abraham
grows younger, or stops growing altogether, so that when his father is
two hundred and five years old, he himself is only seventy-five years
old, making him sixty years younger than he should be by all the laws
of arithmetic. But what is arithmetic to a magician? When the theologian
says three times one is one, he is not thinking of so little a thing as
mathematics--there are no impossibilities for the magician. He can make
the three one, and the one three. Listen to one of the great Christian
Fathers, Tertullian:

_What have the philosopher and the Christian in common? The disciple of
Greece, and the disciple of heaven? What have Athens and Jerusalem, the
church and the academy, heretics and Christians in common? There is
no more inquiry for us, now that Christ has come, nor any occasion for
further investigation, since we have the gospel.... The Son of God is
dead; it is right credible because it is absurd; being buried he has
arisen; it is certain, because it is impossible._

There are no difficulties for theologians. If

"Isaiah, the prophet, cried unto the Lord, and he brought the shadow (of
the sun) ten degrees backward... in the dial," * why could not Abraham
grow backward? If Joshua could arrest the sun, what is a little miracle
like that of Abraham standing still while the whole world moved on? If
Jesus could be bom without a father, why could not Melchisedec be bom
without either a father or a mother? This personage was, perhaps, one
of the most wonderful in bible history. He had neither beginning nor
ending, neither a father nor a mother.

_For this Melchisedec... to whom also Abraham gave a tenth (of the
spoils)... without father, without mother, without descent, having
neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son
of God._ **

     *  II Kings xix, ii.

     **  Hebrews vii, 1-3.

Wonderful as he was, he believed in getting his share of the spoils. The
theologians, in the bible, or outside of it, do not seem to be in the
least surprised at the incredible things in the Word of God. If Eve were
not startled when she heard the serpent talk, neither is the American
theologian who takes that for his text. If Balaam was not at all
perplexed when his ass opened its mouth and asked him a question,
neither are the divinity professors in our universities who explain
the incident to their pupils. This, if anything, is the more wonderful
miracle.

If I were riding a horse, and all of a sudden the animal should turn
around and ask me what the subject of my lecture would be for next
Sunday, I would certainly be dumfounded. Yet neither Balaam, nor his
fellow theologians of to-day, show the least perturbation over an ass
interrogating his rider. They can not afford to. Is not God almighty?
And, besides, upon what grounds would they be justified in rejecting
this or that miracle while accepting others? Was it more difficult for
Balaam's ass to have talked than for Christ to have been bom without
a father, or Melchisedec without any parents at all? Magic and miracle
know no laws.

"If God had not opened the mouth of the ass," said Father Ignatius, a
modern evangelist of the Anglican communion, "remember that there would
have been no Christ." The Christian who says he believes in the virgin
birth, but not in the talking serpent or ass, is a sceptic already.
The reasoning by which he rejects the one miracle is equally effective
against all the others. To accept the Christ miracle by faith, and to
reject the Balaam miracle by reason, is a procedure which leads
to anarchism in thought and faith. Oh, no; if you believe in the
supernatural at all you will have to believe in Melchisedec and Balaam,
as you do in the virgin-born Christ. You can not choose your miracles.
All or none! And the man who believes in one miracle is not a bit
different from the man who believes in a million.

The Unitarian president of America * defines Christianity as "The
fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man." When Edward Everett Hale
died, the Unitarians said that "Pater noster"--our Father--expressed
the heart and soul of his Christianity. A short time ago, Doctor
Eliot, president emeritus of Harvard University, undertook to reduce
Christianity to the same simple terms. The idea common to these men is
that the only essential thing is the God idea. Never mind about Balaam,
or the virgin birth. "Our Father which art in heaven" is all that is
necessary. But one moment: Is not God as much a miracle as Christ or
Balaam? How do we know God is, or that he is a father, or that he is in
heaven? By faith? Why then is not faith also enough to make all
miracles true? The "Our Father" is a chip of the same old block of
supernaturalism. There are against one little chip from the block all
the objections that there are against the whole block. If God is our
father by faith, then Christ was bom of a virgin by faith, and the whale
swallowed Jonah by faith, and the pope is the vicar of God by faith, and
so on to the end of the creed. Let us be consistent; which is another
way of saying, let us be honest.

     * President Taft




The Unbelievable in the Bible

|THE bible taxes even _credulity_ beyond the point of endurance. No
matter how willing one may be to believe everything in the bible, there
is a limit even to one's willingness to believe. When Moses was upon the
mountain talking with God, the people down in the plain were worshiping
idols. Is it possible that with the quaking and thundering mountain
before them, with the deity sitting on its summit, the Jews would have
had the temerity to worship a golden calf? Yet this is precisely what
the Jews are accused of doing. The parting of the Red Sea is easier to
believe than that the Jews worshiped a calf in the immediate presence
of "the one true God"! Let us glance at the story as it is told in the
bible.

_And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were
thunders and lightning, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice
of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the
camp trembled.

And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God. And
they stood at the nether part of the mount.

And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and
louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice_. *

Is it believable that, under such circumstances, with the only God in
sight of all the people, and his voice in their ears, the Jews could
have turned to Aaron and said to him:

_Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses,
the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is
become of him._ **

Both stories can not be true. Either there was no quaking mountain, or
sounding trumpet, or voice of God answering Moses from the summit, or
the tale of the golden calf is an interpolation. If the people were too
stupid to know better, how was it that Aaron, the brother of Moses,
who had met "the true God" on several occasions, instead of showing the
least indignation or surprise, says to them:

_Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of
your sons and of your daughters, and bring them unto me._ ***

     * Exodus xix, 16,17,19.

     ** Exodus xxxii, 1.

     *** Exodus xxxii, 2.

Yes, "bring me your gold," has been the cry of the mystery-man from the
beginning of the world!

_And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving
tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy
gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt_. *

All this in full view of the flaming mountain, with God conversing
with Moses, and the trumpet blowing louder and louder! It is simply
impossible. There is not credulity enough in man, it seems to me, for
such contradictory stories. I know men say they believe in them, but do
they?

Strange as was the conduct of Aaron and the people on this occasion,
the behavior of Moses, when he came down and saw the people dancing
like naked savages about their newly fashioned god, ** was even more
inexplicable. He made a drink out of the golden calf, which he first
ground into powder, and caused "the children of Israel to drink of it."
*** What could have been his idea in converting the god into a beverage?
A text like that indicates plainly the presence of fetishism in the
bible. Even as looking at a brazen serpent was supposed to cure them of
serpent bites, the drinking of gods melted into a beverage was thought
to be a remedy against idolatry. Other examples, proving the fetishistic
beliefs of Moses, are not wanting in the bible. To make a house
"holy" or proof against the plague, Moses put up the following magical
prescription:

     * Exodus xxxii, 4.

     ** Exodus xxxii, 25.

     *** Exodus xxxii, 20.

_And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and
scarlet, and hyssop:

And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running
water:

And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and
the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the
running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:_

_And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the
running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and
with the hyssop, and with the scarlet._ *

To ascertain a woman's virtue, the prescription was as follows:

_And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the
dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and
put it into the water:

And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot
them out with the bitter water:

And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the
curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and
become bitter._

This was not all; an animal's flesh was also burned and mixed with the
water.

_And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass,
that, if she be defiled... her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall
rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people_. **

     * Leviticus xiv, 49-52.

     ** Numbers v, 11-27.

If these symptoms did not appear, then the woman was not guilty. But
is it believable that, with God at their elbow, constantly answering
questions, revealing to them the pas and the future, and making all
hidden things plain, they needed mixed drinks, or concoctions, to find
out whether or not a woman was innocent? And mark you, evidence had no
place at all in the Mosaic court. No witnesses were examined, and no
testimony taken; it was the mixed preparations that did the work of
judge and jury. Is it possible that all this is divine?

Blood, according to the bible, is a great disinfectant. The way to
sanctify a man or a people was to sprinkle them with blood.

_Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon
the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of
his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe
of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.

And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the
anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and
upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him. *

And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people._ **

How does such a practice differ from fetishism? How can blood on the
garments have any effect upon the conscience or the intellect? The
plea that all this was mere symbolism, if applied also to the rites and
ceremonies prescribed by the Hindu or Persian priesthood, would make
all religions inspired. The ancient Hindus believed that cow-dung was
divinely prescribed for sanctifying purposes. Why was not that, too,
mere symbolism? The word symbolism is made to cover a multitude of
superstitions. Lacking the courage, and sometimes also the honesty, to
say that such ceremonies prove a very low state of culture on the part
of the people who observed them, clever theologians not only excuse
or defend them, but they even profess to find symbolized in them the
mysterious purposes of the infinite. Superstition dies hard.

Even as sprinkling with blood sanctified the people, confessing to a
goat secured a pardon from God for sin.

_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 unto a land not
inhabited_. ***

     * Exodus xxix, 20-21.

     **  Exodus xxiv, 8.

     *** Leviticus xvi, 21-22.

Could this be the origin of the confessional? The goat ceremony has a
wider meaning than the commentators will admit. There were really two
goats, upon which Aaron, the priest, cast lots, "one lot for the Lord,
and the other lot for the scapegoat." *

The word "scapegoat" is a euphemism; the Hebrew text says _Azazel_. Now
this was one of the terrible names of God. Both Jews and Mohammedans
believed Azazel to be a dread divinity. Milton introduces Azazel as
the standard-bearer of the fallen hosts of heaven. The Arabs, who are a
branch of the Semitic race, paid homage to this celestial, and spoke of
him as the counsellor or advocate of Allah who was banished from heaven
because when Adam, the first man, appeared upon the scene, he would not
bow to him. Azazel did not think much of man; and it was for that he
lost his position. The "scapegoat," then, in the text was none other
than his Satanic majesty, the fallen chief of the heavenly hosts--the
devil. Setting apart a goat for Azazel, or allowing him to share with
Jehovah the offering at the altar, gives support to the belief that the
Jews worshiped the devil as well as Jehovah. It is plainly stated in
other parts of the bible that devil worship was common among the Jews
even as late as the time of Rehoboam, who reigned after David and
Solomon. ** But more light is thrown on the subject of the intimacy
between God and Satan in the story of Job.

     * Leviticus xvi, 7-8.

     **  II Chronicles xi, 15: "And he ordained him priests for
     the high places, and for the devils."




IV. The Strangest Story in the Bible

|ONE of the strangest chapters in the bible is the description of
the interview between God and the devil. The interview takes place in
heaven. We have already met the devil in Paradise; now we are to
find him, as the French say, in a _tête à tête_ with Jehovah, at the
exclusive headquarters of the latter. There is much reason to believe
that these two beings, who seem to be together on important occasions,
originally sprang from the same stock, if such a term could be used.
Jehovah and Azazel, or Satan, appear to be first cousins. This is the
impression of nearly every student who looks into their pedigrees. In
the thought of early man God was hardly distinguishable from the devil.
The evidence bears out the bible suggestion that at one time God and the
devil were on the best of terms, and kept house together. In those days
it was really difficult to tell them apart. In the twenty-first chapter
of the first book of Chronicles, it is written by "inspiration" that
"God moved David to number Israel." In the twenty-fourth chapter, the
first verse, of the second book of Samuel, we read that it was Satan who
moved David to take a census of the nation. There is no inconsistency
here. God and Satan belong to the "unknown," and they pull together.
When, as the bible informs us, there was war in heaven, the two
relatives quarreled and parted. And though ever since they have
maintained separate quarters, now and then, when there was a reunion of
the family, Satan was invited to join the festivities. There is a saying
that "blood is thicker than water," and still another, that "blood will
tell." The occasional conferences and exchange of confidences between
Jehovah and Satan, as related in the bible, is a confirmation of these
popular proverbs.

The instructions given to Aaron about being sure to have two goats, and
to let Azazel have the one which fell to his lot, even though it may
be the fatter animal, shows the care which Jehovah takes of his ancient
comrade and minister. Perhaps this was necessary to keep the peace.
At any rate, it is evident that Jehovah was mindful of the rights of
Azazel.

But now about the interview between Jehovah and Satan: "Now there was a
day," says the bible, "when the sons of God came to present themselves
before the Lord, and Satan came also among them." * Was he, too, one
of the Sons of God? It is impossible to read the description of these
family gatherings in heaven with Satan also invited, without being
impressed with the importance of the devil in the councils of God.
Perhaps the _entente cordiale_ between Satan and Jehovah is to be
explained by the fact that the latter had not found any one among all
his ministers who could fill the place made vacant by the resignation of
Satan. Jehovah needed the devil, and this dependence upon him to carry
to a successful issue his most urgent and mysterious decrees was the
secret of the deference shown to the devil in these periodical reunions
at the throne of God. On one of these occasions, as we have seen, when
the children of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan,
of course, was there among them. But this was not the only time that
Satan was invited to meet with God. His presence at these gatherings
created no surprise, because he had been seen there frequently. But I am
not equally sure that the marks of special attention shown to him by
the Lord of heaven did not make the saints a little jealous of him. The
reports of these meetings in heaven confine themselves exclusively to
what transpires between the two principals, God and Satan. The other
"sons of God" seem to have acted what in modern parlance would be called
"a silent part."

     * Job i, 6.

Jehovah inquired of his distinguished guest, the news and whence he
came. As the Lord knew all the news himself, and also whence Satan came,
he must have asked these questions for the purpose of "drawing him out,"
to use an expression in vogue among diplomats.

But Satan knew how to keep a secret. He answered his host's question
without really telling anything either of the news, or whence he came:
"From going to and fro in the earth and from walking up and down in it,"
he replied. If we were not afraid of exposing ourselves to the charge
of blasphemy, we would say that this was a devilish answer. It said
nothing. Evidently Satan wanted God to show his hand first.

"Hast thou considered," asked the Lord, addressing Satan more
confidentially, and coming to the point, "my servant Job, that there
is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that
fear-eth God, and escheweth evil?" *

     * Job 1,8.

In all probability the reference to Job was to prove that there was one
man, at least, whom the devil had not yet been able to win over to his
side. But the devil had an explanation for his failure to get Job;
it was not because Job loved God, but because of the favors God kept
showering upon him.

"Doth Job fear God for naught?" he asked. "Hast not thou made an hedge
about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every
side?... But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and
he will curse thee to thy face." *

This was a challenge. Satan would not allow that there was even one man
who loved and served God from choice. To show his confidence in Job, the
Lord not only accepted the devil's challenge, but volunteered to hand
over his one faithful subject to the tender mercies of the Evil One.

_And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold all that he hath is in thy power._
**

     * Job i, 9-11.

     **  Job i, 12.

Thereupon Satan hurried out in search of his victim. Whether or not the
other "children of God" who were pre

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/45475