DAVID O. MCKAY LIBRARY
3 1404 00646 9354
DATE DUE
jo
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013
http://archive.org/details/bibleiauthentici01rems
-
Works by John E. Remsburg
The Bible. A new book about the Bible. The best one of all. Large
12mo. 500 pages. Cloth, $1.25. Postpaid.
Christian Sabbath. A small and valuable tract for promiscuous distribu-
tion wherever the Sunday bigots are enforcing their Sunday
Laws. 3 cents.
Decline ol Faith. 5 cents.
False Claims of the Church. Analyzing and confuting the claims made
by churchmen that the Christian church has promoted morality,
learning, temperance, science, freedom, and showing how she has
opposed progress. Paper, 10 cents.
Image Breaker. 25 cents.
Paine and Wesley. 5 cents.
Piety and the Slave Trade. The Record of Methodism. (Tract.) 5 cents.
Prophets and Prophecies. Future Events Not Predicted. (Tract.) S cents.
Protestant Intolerance. (Tract.) 5 cents.
Sabbath Breaking. Giving the origin of Sabbath ideas, examining Sun-
day arguments, and showing that there is no scriptural authority
for the observance of the day : also showing that the Christian
" Fathers " did no* specially regard the day and that the Reform-
ers opposed its adoption by the church. A book brimful of
good reasons why the Sunday laws should be repealed. Paper,
25 cents.
Six Historic Americans. This work consists of two parts, ' The Father*
of the Republic." and "The Saviors of Our Republic." In regard
to Paine's religious views, Mr. Remsburg establishes the negative
of the following : (1) Was Paine an Atheist? (2) Was he a
Christian? (3) Did he recant? Page after page of the most
radical Freethought sentiments are culled from the correspond-
ence and other writings of Franklin and Jefferson, which show
that these men were as pronounced in their rejection of Chris-
tianity as Paine and Ingersoll. That Washington was not a church
communicant, nor even a believer in Christianity, is affirmed or
admitted by more than a score of witnesses, one-half of them
eminent clergymen, including the pastors of the churches, which
he with his wife attended. In support of Lincoln's Infidelity, he
has collected the testimony of more than one hundred witnesses.
These witnesses include Mr. Lincoln's wife; his three law part-
ners, Maj. Stuurt, Judge Logan and W. H. Herndon ; his private
secretaries. Col. Nicolay and Col. Hay ; his executor after death.
Judge David Davis; many of his biographers, including his com-
panion and confidant, Col. Lamon; his political advisers. Col.
Matheny, Jesse W. Fell, and Dr. Jayne; members of his cabinet,
and scores more of his most intimate friends and associates. The
refutation of Grant's alleged Christian belief is complete, and
the proofs of his unbelief are full and convincing. Large 12mo.
Price, $1.25.
Was Washington a Christian ? 8 cents.
THE TRUTH SEEKER CO.
62 Vesey Street, Sew York
THE
BIBLE
I. AUTHENTICITY
II. CREDIBILITY
III. MORALITY
By
JOHN E. REMSBURG
'Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. "
— Ingersoll.
New York
THE TRUTH SEEKER COMPANY
62 Vesey Street
1907
In memory of
my
mother,
Sarah B. Brunei*.
PREFACE.
In January, 1901, the following announcement
appeared in The Truth Seeker, of New York :
To the .Readers op The Truth Seeker : Two
years ago 2hat able and sagacious Liberal
leader, L. K. Washburn, wrote : " The next
great moral revolution of the world will be a
crusade against the Christian Bible." The
church expects this and is preparing for it. In
an address before the Methodist ministers of
Chicago, the Rev. Dr. Curry, a distinguished
Methodist divine, said : " We are standing on
the eve of the most stupendous revolution in
reference to the doctrines of the Bible that the
church has ever known." In this long war with
bibliolaters the younger readers of The Truth
Seeker will take a prominent part. To call their
attention to the impending struggle, and to aid
in a small way in fitting them for it, the editor
of The Truth Seeker has invited me to open a
sort of Bible school in his paper. For nearly a
quarter of a century I have been writing and
lecturing and debating against the divinity of
the Bible. My opposition from the trained de-
vi Preface.
fenders of the book has been at times both keen
and bitter. I was compelled to become and re-
main a diligent student of the Bible and of
Biblical criticism. As far as possible I collected
all of the damaging facts obtainable. I digested
and classified them and filed them away in the
labeled pigeon-holes of my brain for use when
needed. I am growing old. My hair which
was black when I began my work will soon be
white. I have at the most but a few more years
to labor. This arsenal of facts which I have
gathered and the arguments that I have formu-
lated from them I wish to place within the
reach of others. Whether the thought be a
Spiritualistic assurance or an Irish bull, it will
be a pleasure to me when I am dead to know
that I am still of some service to the cause.
In the next issue of The Truth Seeker I shall
begin a series of some thirty lessons or chapters
on "The Bible." The chief purpose of the
work will be to combat the dogmas of the di-
vine origin and infallibility of the Christian
Bible. The points of attack will be three: 1. Its
Authenticity; 2. Its Credibility; 3. Its Morality.
I shall endeavor to disprove in a large degree
the authenticity of its books, the credibility of
its statements, and the morality of its teachings.
John E. Remsburg.
These chapters were published in weekly in-
stallments in The Truth Seeker, their publica-
tion extending through a period of twenty
Preface. vii
months. The matter was electrotyped as pub-
lished and the work will now be given to the
public in book form. To those interested in
Biblical criticism, and especially to the Free-
thought propagandist and to the Christian in-
vestigator, it is hoped that its contents may be
useful.
The facts presented in this volume, while
known to many Christian scholars, are, as far as
possible, kept from the lower orders of the
clergy and from the laity. Divines enjoying
high honors and large salaries may be cognizant
of them without endangering their faith ; but
the humbler ministers who receive small pay,
and the laity who support the church, are liable
to have their faith impaired by a knowledge of
them.
In Part II., devoted to the Credibility of the
Bible, less space is given to the errors of the
New Testament than to those of the Old Testa-
ment. This is not because the New contains
less errors than the Old, but because the author
has prepared another volume on this subject.
In "The Christ," a sequel to "The Bible," a
more exhaustive exposition of the errors of the
New Testament, particularly of the Four Gos-
pels, is given.
While denying the infallibility of the writers
of the Bible the author is not unconscious of
hip <*» fallibility.
CONTENTS*
PART I.
AUTHENTICITY.
Chapter I.
Sacred Books of the World, .
5
Chapter II.
The Christian Bible,
12
Chapter III.
Formation of the Canon,
21
Chapter IV.
Different Versions of the Bible,
39
Chapter V.
Authorship and Dates,
45
Chapter VI.
The Pentateuch,
60
Chapter VII.
The Prophets, ....
76
Chapter VIII.
The Hagiographa,
94
x Contents.
Chapter IX.
The Four Gospels, . . . .108
Chapter X.
Acts, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation. 140
Chapter XL
Pauline Epistles, 152
PART II.
CREDIBILITY.
Chapter XII.
Textual Errors, 163
Chapter XIII.
Two Cosmogonies of Genesis, . . 181
Chapter XIV.
The Patriarchal Age, .... 188
Chapter XV.
The Jewish Kings, .... 198
Chapter XVI.
When Did Jehoshaphat Die ? . . 210
Chapter XVII.
Inspired Numbers, .... 231
Chapter XVIII.
Harmony of the Gospels, . . . 238
Contents.
xi
Chapter XIX.
Paul and the Apostles,
. 247
Chapter XX.
The Bible and
History,
Chapter XXI.
. 260
The Bible and Science,
. 271
Chapter XXII.
Prophecies,
Chapter XXIII.
. 293
Miracles,
Chapter XXIV.
. 306
The Bible God
, . . . .
. 317
PART III.
MORALITY.
Chapter XXV.
The Bible Not a Moral Guide, . . 329
Chapter XXVI.
Lying — Cheating — Stealing, . . 339
Chapter XXVII.
Murder — War, 351
Chapter XXVIII.
Human Sacrifices— Cannibalism — Witch-
craft, . . . . . . 361
xii Contents.
Chapter XXIX.
Slavery— Polygamy, .... 374
Chapter XXX.
Adultery— Obscenity . . • .388
Chapter XXXI.
Intemperance— Vagrancy— Ignorance, . 394
Chapter XXXII.
Injustice to Women— Unkindness to
Children— Cruelty to Animals, . 404
Chapter XXXIII.
Tyranny — Intolerance, .... 415
Chapter XXXIV.
Conclusion, 423
APPENDIX.
Arguments Against the Divine Origin and
3 in Support of the Human Origin of
the Bible, 433
Index, 463
Parti.
AUTHENTICITY.
THE BIBLE.
PART I.-AUTHENTICITY.
CHAPTER I.
SACRED BOOKS OF THE WORLD.
Asia has been the fruitful source of religions
and Bibles. The seven great religions of the
world, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Confucianism,
Zoroastrianism, Mohammedanism, Judaism, and
Christianity — all had their birth in Asia ; and
the so-called sacred books which are used to
uphold and propagate these faiths were nearly
all written by Asiatic priests and prophets. A
brief description of the most important of these
books will be presented in this chapter.
Sacred Books of Tndia.
Vedas. — The Vedas are the oldest Bibles in
the world. There are four of them, the Rig-
veda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda, and the
Atharvaveda. Devout Hindoos believe that
these books have always existed — that they
6 Authenticity of the Bible.
are co-eternal with God. Scholars agree that
they are very old, that the Rigveda, the oldest
of the four, and one of the oldest books extant,
was composed between 3,000 and 4,000 years
ago. Each Veda is complete in itself, and con-
sists of religious teachings, prayers, and hymns.
Puranas. — The Vedas and Puranas are the
most important of the sacred books of the Hin-
doos. The Puranas, more than any other works,
have contributed to mould the doctrines of the
popular Brahmanical religion of India. They
are eighteen in number, of which the Bhagavata,
containing a history of Chrisna, is the one best
known.
Tripitaka. — This is the Buddhist Bible. It
was compiled 300 years before the Christian
era. Self conquest and universal charity are its
fundamental teachings.
Upanishads. — These are sacred books which
treat of the Creation, of the Supreme Being or
Spirit, Brahma, and of the nature of the human
soul and its relation to Brahma.
Tantras. — The Tantras are sacred books re-
lating chiefly to the God Siva.
Ramayana. — The Ramayana is one of the great
epic poems of the world. It gives the history of
Rama, one of the incarnations of the God
Vishnu.
Mahabharata. — This is another epic poem, a
larger one, containing more than 100,000 verses.
Like the Ramayana, it is believed to be of di-
vine origin. It has been described as "the
Sacred Books of the World. 7
great manual of all that is moral, useful, and
agreeable."
Institutes of Menu. — Menu is regarded as
the law-giver of the Hindoos, as Moses is of the
Jews. The Institutes of Menu are in many re-
spects similar to the so-called laws of Moses.
Sacred Books of China.
Tih King. — This book contains a cosmological
treatise and a compendium on morals. It was
written 1143 B.C.
Shu King. — This contains the teachings and
maxims of certain ancient Chinese kings. There
are documents in it over 4,000 years old.
Shi King. — This is the Chinese hymn book.
It contains three hundred sacred songs and
poems, some of which are very old.
Le King. — The Le King is a text book on
manners, customs, and ceremonies. It has been
one of the chief agents in n??nlding the social
and religious life of China.
Chun Tsien. — The Chun Tslen is a historical
work compiled by Confucius. It gives a record
of his own times and those immediately preced-
ing him.
The above books, called the Five Kings, are
the canonical books of Confucianism, the relig-
ion of the educated classes of China. With the
exceptions noted, they were mostly written or
compiled about 500 B.C. They are considered
sacred by the Chinese, but not, like other sacred
books, a revelation from God. Confucius recog-
8 Authenticity of the Bible.
nized no God. His religion is preeminently the
religion of this world, and is thus summed up
by him : " The observance of the three funda-
mental laws of relation between sovereign and
subject, father and child, husband and wife, and
the five capital virtues — universal charity, im-
partial justice, conformity to ceremonies and
established usages, rectitude of heart and mind,
and pure sincerity."
Sacred Books of Persia.
Zend Avesta. — This is one of the most impor-
tant of all the Bibles of the world, although the
religion which it teaches numbers but a few ad-
herents. It was written by Zoroaster and his
disciples about 3,000 years ago. It was an enor-
mous work in size, covering, it is said, 12,000
parchments. The Zend Avesta proper con-
sisted of twenty-one books. All of these, save
one and some fragments of the others, have per-
ished. They dealt chiefly with religion, but
touched upon almost every subject of interest
to mankind. They were believed to be a faith-
ful record of the words spoken to the great
prophet by God himself. Both Jews and Chris-
tians borrowed much from the Zend Avesta.
Sadder. — The Sadder is the Bible of the
modern Parsees, and contains, in an abridged
form, the religious teachings of Zoroaster.
Sacred Books of Tslam.
Koran. — The Mohammedans believe that
divine revelations were given to Adam, Seth,
Sacred Books of the World. 9
Enoch, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and Mo-
hammed, and that each successive revelation in
a measure superseded the preceding one. The
books given to Adam, Seth, Enoch, and Abra-
ham have been lost. The Pentateuch, the
Psalms, and the Four Gospels are accepted by
them, but the interpolations and corruptions of
Jews and Christians, they claim, have greatly im-
paired their value. The Koran is with them the
book of books — God's last and best revelation to
man. It was written in rays of light on a tablet
before the throne of God. A copy bound in
white silk and bedecked with gems was carried
by Gabriel to the lowest heaven, where from
time to time, during a period of twenty years,
portions of it were transmitted to Mohammed
until the whole was given to the world. The
book is divided into 114 chapters. It is elegant
in style, and, like most other Bibles, contains,
along with a great deal that is fabulous and
puerile, some admirable moral teachings.
Sunna. — The Sunna is a large work containing
many thousand legends of Mohammed. It is a
sacred book, but of less authority than the
Koran.
Sacred Books of the Jews.
Torah. — The Book of the Law, now commonly
called the Pentateuch, is the most sacred of all
Jewish books. Jews as well as Christians be-
lieve that it was written by Moses and dictated
by God. It was not divided into five books as we
have it. In the oldest Hebrew manuscripts the
io Authenticity of the Bible.
entire work forms but one book. It was subse-
quently divided into parshiyoth, or chapters,
and these into sedarim, or sections.
Nebiim. — The Law and the Prophets were the
chief authorities of the Jews. The books of the
Prophets, called Nebiim, were believed by the
orthodox Jews to be divinely inspired, but were
esteemed of less importance than the Torah.
Cethubim. — This collection of writings com-
prised the hymns, poems, and other books now
known as the Hagiographa.
Talmud. — The Talmud, while not regarded as
a divine revelation, like the Law and the
Prophets, is in some respects the most impor-
tant of Jewish works. It is almost a library
in itself, and constitutes a vast storehouse of
information pertaining to Jewish history and
theology.
Sacred Book of Christians.
Holy Bible. — The Christian Bible consists of
two collections of small books, one called the
Old Testament, the other the New Testament.
The Old Testament comprises the Torah,
Nebiim, and Cethubim of the Jews. It is di-
vided into 39 books (including the Apocryphal
books accepted by the Greek and Roman Cath-
olic churches, about 50). The New Testament
is a collection of 27 early Christian writings,
which originally appeared in the various
churches of Asia, Africa and Europe.
The Bible is but one of many books for which
divinity is claimed. Christians deny the divin-
Sacred Books of the World. 1 1
Ity of the other books, however, and affirm that
they are of human origin — that their book is
God's only revelation to mankind. The ortho-
dox claim respecting its divinity is expressed in
the following words :
"Behind the human authors stood the divine
Spirit, controlling, guiding, and suggesting every
part of their different messages" (Birks).
12 Authenticity of the Bible.
CHAPTEK II.
THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE.
The title Bible, from Ta Biblia, meaning The
Book, or more properly The Books, was given
to the sacred book of Christians, it is claimed,
by Chrysostom in the fifth century.
For a period of one hundred and fifty years
the sacred books of the Jews alone constituted
the Christian Bible. They consisted of the fol-
lowing three collections of books which form the
Genesis,
Exodus,
Leviticus,
Joshua,
Judges,
1 Samuel,
2 Samuel,
i Kings,
2 Kings,
Isaiah,
Jeremiah,
Ezekiel,
Hosea,
Joel,
Old testament.
The Law.
Numbers,
Deuteronomy.
The Prophets.
Amos,
Obadiah,
Jonah,
Micabi
Mahum,
Habakkuk,
Zephaniah,
Haggai,
Zechariah,
Malachi.
The Christian Bible.
13
Hagiographa.
Psalms,
Proverbs,
Job,
Song of Solomon,
Kuth,
Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes,
Esther,
Daniel,
Ezra,
Nehemiah,
1 Chronicles,
2 Chronicles.
To the above thirty-nine books of the Old
Testament were subsequently added the follow-
ing twenty-seven books of the
new testament.
Matthew,
Mark,
Luke,
John,
Acts,
Romans,
1 Corinthians,
2 Corinthians,
Galatians,
Ephesians,
Philippians,
Colossians,
1 Thessalonians,
2 Thessalonians,
1 Timothy,
2 Timothy,
Titus,
Philemon,
Hebrews,
James,
1 Peter,
2 Peter,
1 John,
2 John,
3 John,
Jude,
Revelation.
The books of the Old Testament were called
The Scripture, or Scriptures, by early Chris-
tians. After the books of the New Testament
were recognized as canonical and inspired, the
terms Old and New Testaments were employed
to distinguish the two divisions. Tertullian, at
1 4 Authenticity of the fcible.
the beginning of the third century, was the first
to use the term New Testament.
The proper arrangement of the books of the
Old Testament is in the order named in the
foregoing list. Both Jews and Christians, how-
ever, have varied the order. The books of the
Hagiographa, with the exceptions of Ruth
which follows Judges, Lamentations which fol-
lows Jeremiah, and Daniel which appears among
the Prophets, have been placed between the
Earlier and Later Prophets. In later Jewish
versions the Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamenta-
tions, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, called the five
rolls, come immediately after the Pentateuch.
In the Christian Bibles of the Eastern churches,
including the two most noted ancient manu-
scripts, the Vatican and Alexandrian, the seven
Catholic Epistles, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1
John, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude, follow Acts
and precede the Pauline Epistles.
In the accepted Hebrew the thirty-nine books
of the Old Testament formed but twenty-two,
corresponding to the twenty-two letters of the
Hebrew alphabet. Judges and Ruth formed
one book, First and Second Samuel one, First
and Second Kings one, First and Second Chroni-
cles one, Ezra and Nehemiah one, Jeremiah and
Lamentations one, and the twelve Minor Proph-
ets one.
The books of the Pentateuch (Pentt, five;
teuchos, volume) now bear the Greek names
given them by the Septuagint translators, with
The Christian Bible. 15
the exception of the fourth, Arithmoi, which is
called by the English name, Numbers. The
Hebrew names for these, as well as many other
books of the Old Testament, are the initial
words of the books. The name of Genesis, as
translated, is '* In the Beginning ; " Exodus,
" These Are the Words ;" Leviticus, " And He
Called;" Numbers, "And He Spake;" Deute-
ronomy, "These Are the Words." Joshua orig-
inally belonged to this collection, and to the six
books modern scholars have given the name
Hexateuch.
About one-half of the books of the Bible,
Joshua, Isaiah, Matthew, etc., are named after
their alleged authors. A few, like Ruth and
Esther, take their names from the leading
characters of the books. The Pauline Epistles
bear the names of the churches, people, or per-
sons to whom they are addressed. The titles of
Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, and
a few others, indicate the subjects of the books.
The division of the books of the Bible into
chapters was made in the thirteenth century;
the division into verses, in the sixteenth cen-
tury. These divisions are to a great extent
mechanical rather than logical. Paragraphs are
frequently divided in the formation of chapters,
and sentences in the formation of verses.
Canonical and Apocryphal Books of the Old and new
testaments.
In addition to the canonical books of the
Bible, there are many Jewish and Christian
1 6 Authenticity of the Bible.
books known as the Apocryphal books of the
Old and New Testaments. A critical review of
the Bible demands a consideration of the apoc-
ryphal as well as the canonical books, and the
subject will be made more intelligible to the
reader by giving a list of both. In making a
classification of them they will be divided into
ten groups, as follows :
1.
Books accepted as canonical and divine by all
Jews and Christians.
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deute-
ronomy.
2.
Books accepted as canonical and divine by a
part of the Jews and by all Christians.
Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings,
2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel,
Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habak-
kuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.
3.
Books accepted by a part of the Jews as canoni-
cal, but not divine; by most Christians as
canonical and divine.
Ruth, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehe-
miah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesi-
astes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel.
4.
Books accepted as canonical by some Jews, and
for most part by the Greek and Roman
Catholic churches, but rejected by the Prot-
estants.
The Christian Bible. 17
Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Book of Wisdom,
Song of the Three Children, History of Susanna,
Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Ec-
clesiasticus, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 1 Maocabees, 2
Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 5 Macca-
bees.
5.
Lost books cited by writers of the Bible.
Book of the Wars of the Lord, Book of Jasher,
Book of the Covenant, Book of Nathan, Book of
Gad, Book of Samuel, Prophecy of Ahijah, Vis-
ions of Iddo, Acts of Uzziah, Acts of Solomon,
Three Thousand Proverbs of Solomon, A Thou-
sand and Five Songs of Solomon, Chronicles of
the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the Kings of
Israel, Book of Jehu, Book of Enoch.
6.
Books which formed the original canon of the
New Testament and which have always been
accepted by Christians.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Bomans,
1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephe-
sians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians,
2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus,
Philemon, 1 John.
7.
Books which are now generally accepted by
Christians, but which were for a time rejected.
Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John,
3 John, Jude, Revelation.
1 8 Authenticity of the Bible.
8.
Books now excluded from the canon, but which
are found in some of the older manuscripts
of the New Testament.
Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1
Clement, 2 Clement, Paul's Epistle to Laodi-
ceans, Apostolic Constitutions.
9.
Other Apocryphal books of the New Testament
which are extant.
Gospel of the Iufancy, Protevangelion of
James, Acts of Pilate, Nativity of Mary, Fifteen
Epistles of Ignatius, Epistle of Polycarp, Gos-
pel of Marcion (in part), Clementine Recogni-
tions, Clementine Homilies.
10.
Apocryphal books of the New Testament which
are lost.
Oracles of Christ, Gospel According to the
Hebrews, Gospel According to the Egyptians,
Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Paul, Gospel of
Philip, Gospel of Matthias, Gospel of Andrew,
Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of Tatian, Gospel
of Basilides, Gospel of Apelles, Gospel of
Cerinthus, Gospel of Bartholomew, Acts of
Paul, Acts of Peter, Revelation of Paul, Revela-
tion of Peter, Preaching of Peter, Memoirs of
the Apostles.
Here is a list of one hundred and fifty books.
In the apocryphal groups have been included
only the most important of this class. To thero
The Christian Bible. 19
might be added at least one hundred other
apocryphal books of the Old and New Testa-
ments. Of these two hundred and fifty Jewish
and Christian writings, sixty-six — about one-
fourth — have been declared canonical and divine
by Protestants.
In the mind of the devout Protestant there is
as great a difference between the canonical and
apocryphal books of the Old and New Testa-
ments as there is between light and darkness.
The former he regards as the work of a wise
and good God, the latter, with a few exceptions,
as the work of ignorant and wicked men. And
yet there is no such difference. The two classes
are of much the same character. The worst
canonical books are, perhaps, better than the
worst apocryphal books; while, on the other
hand, the best apocryphal books, if not equal to
the best canonical books, are far superior to a
majority of them. Circumstances rather than
merit determined the fate of these books. Books
of real merit and of high authority in some of
the early churches were cast aside because
these churches either ceased to exist or changed
their creeds; while books of little merit sur-
vived as authorities because their teachings
supported the doctrines which survived. The
religion of the primitive churches underwent
many radical changes. The Christianity of the
second century was not the Christianity of the
first. Books teaching the new theology super'
seded those which taught the old; and thus the
20 Authenticity of the Bible.
earlier writings became obsolete. Of all the
Christian books written prior to the middle of
the second century only a few epistles have been
retained as authorities.
Formation of the Canon. 21
CHAPTEK III.
FORMATION OF THE CANON.
Second in interest and importance only to the
origin of the individual books composing the
Bible are the facts relating to the manner in
which these books were collected into one great
volume and declared canonical or authoritative.
The formation of the canon required centuries
of time to complete.
the Jewish Canon.
The Jewish canon, it is claimed, was chiefly
the work of Ezra, completed by Nehemiah.
"All antiquity," says Dr. Adam Clarke, "is
nearly unanimous in giving Ezra the honor of
collecting the different writings of Moses and
the prophets and reducing them into the form
in which they are now found in the Bible."
This opinion, shared alike by Jews and Chris-
tians, is simply a tradition. There is no conclu-
sive evidence that Ezra founded the canon of
the Old Testament. Nehemiah could not have
completed it, because a part of the books were
written after his time. There is no proof that
all the books of the Old Testament existed in a
22 Authenticity of the Bible.
collected form before the beginning of the
Christian era. There is no proof that even the
Law and the Prophets existed in such a form
before the Maccabean period. The Rev. Fred-
erick Myers, an able authority on the Bible,
makes this candid admission : " By whom the
books of the Old Testament were collected into
one volume, and by what authority made canon-
ical, we do not know " (" Catholic Thoughts on
the Bible," p. 56).
Another prevalent belief is that all of the
Jewish scriptures were lost during the captiv-
ity, and that Ezra was divinely inspired to re-
write them. Irenseus says : " God . . . in-
spired Esdras, the priest of the tribe of Levi, to
compose anew all the discourses of the ancient
prophets, and to restore to the people the laws
given them by Moses " (" Ecclesiastical His-
tory," Book V., chap. viii).
This is a myth. The books of the Old Tes-
tament which were wriiten before the captiv-
ity were not lost. Many books, it is true, were
written after the captivity, but these books were
not reproductions of lost writings. They were
original compositions, or compilations of doc-
^ uments which had not been lost.
If Ezra was inspired, as claimed, to rewrite
the Hebrew scriptures, he did not complete his
task, for the books that were really lost have
never been restored, and the Old Testament is
but a part of the Hebrew scriptures that once
existed. St. Chrysostom says : " The Jews hav-
Formation of the Canon. 23
ing been at some time careless, and at others
profane, they suffered some of the sacred books
to be lost through their carelessness, and have
burnt and destroyed others." The list of books
given in the preceding chapter, under the head
of " Lost Books cited by writers of the Bi-
ble," would nearly all be deemed canonical were
they extant. Referring to these books, the He v.
Dr. Campbell, in his " Introduction to Mat-
thew," says : " The Book of the Wars of the
Lord, the Book of Jasher, the Book of Nathan
the Prophet, the Book of Gad the Seer, and
several others, are referred to in the Old
Testament, manifestly as of equal authority
with the book which refers to them, and as
fuller in point of information. Yet these are to
all appearances irrecoverably lost." God's rev-
elation in its entirety, then, no longer exists.
The ten Hebrew tribes which formed the
kingdom of Israel, and whose remnants were af-
terwards called Samaritans, accepted only the
first six books of the Old Testament. The other
Jews generally accepted the Pentateuch and the
Prophets, and, in a less degree, the Hagiographa
as canonical. Some of them also attached more
or less importance to the Apocryphal books.
Che Christian Canon.
Respecting the formation of the Nevv Testa-
ment canon, the Rev. Dr. Roswell D. Hitchcock
says :
" The new book of records was, like the old,
aet down by eye-witnesses of and actors in its
24 Authenticity of the Bible.
scenes, closely after their occurrence; its suc-
cessive portions were cautiously scrutinized and
clearly distinguished as entitled to reception;
when the record, properly so-called, was com-
pleted, the new canon was closed " (".Analysis of
the Bible," p. 1149).
" This process was rapid and decisive; it had
in all probability become substantially com-
plete before the death of John, the last of the
apostles " (Ibid, p. 1158).
That these statements, popularly supposed
1 to be true, are wholly untrue will be demon-
strated by the facts presented in this and suc-
ceeding chapters. The Christian canon was not
completed before the death»of the* last apostle.
The New Testament did not exist in the time of
the apostles. It did not exist in the time of the
Apostolic Fathers. It was not in existence in the
middle of the second century.
There was no New Testament in the time of Pa-
pias. Dr. Samuel Davidson, the highest Chris-
tian authority on the canon, says : " Papias
(150 a.d.) knew nothing, so far as we can learn,
of a New Testament canon " (" Canon of the
Bible," p. 123).
Justin Martyr knew nothing of a New Testa-
ment canon. I quote again from Dr. Davidson:
" Justin Martyr's canon (150 a.d.), so far as di-
vine authority and inspiration are concerned,
was the Old Testament " (Ibid, p. 129).
For nearly two centuries after the beginning
of the Christian era, the Old Testament — the
Formation of the Canon. 25
Old Testament alone — constituted the Christian
canon. No other books were called scripture;
no other books were considered inspired; no
other books were deemed canonical.
founding of the Canon.
To Irenaeus, more than to any other man, be-
longs the credit of founding the Roman Cath-
olic church; and to him also belongs the credit
of founding the New Testament canon, which is
a Roman Catholic work. No collection of books
corresponding to our New Testament existed
before the time of Irenaeus. He was the first to
make such a collection, and he was the first to
claim inspiration and divine authority for its
books. Dr. Davidson says :
" The conception of canonicity and inspiration
attaching to New Testament books did not ex-
ist till the time of Irenaeus " (" Canon," p. 163).
At the close of the second century the Chris-
tian world was divided into a hundred different
sects. Irenaeus and others conceived the plan
of uniting these sects, or the more orthodox of
them, into one great Catholic church, with
Rome at the head; for Rome was at this time
the largest and most influential of all the Chris-
tian churches. "It is a matter of necessity,"
says Irenaeus, " that every church should agree
with this church on account of its preeminent
authority " (" Heresies," Book 3).
In connection with this work Irenaeus made
a collection of books for use in the church. His
26 Authenticity of the Bible.
collection comprised the following : Matthew,
Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, First Corin-
thians, Second Corinthians, Galatians Ephe-
sians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessaloni-
ans, Second Thessalonians, First Timothy, Sec-
ond Timothy, Titus, Philemon, First John, and
Revelation — twenty books in all.
In the work of establishing the Roman Cath-
olic church and the New Testament canon Ire-
nseus was succeeded, early in the third century,
by Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. They
adopted the list of books made by him. The
books adopted by these Fathers were selected
from a large number of Christian writings then
extant — forty or more gospels, nearly as many
Acts of Apostles, a score of Revelations, and a
hundred epistles. Each church had one or more
books which were used in that church. No
divine authority, however, was ascribed to any
of them.
Why did the Fathers choose these particular
books? Above all, why did they choose four
gospels instead of one? We never see four
biographies of Washington, of Cromwell, or of
Napoleon, bound in' one volume ; yet here we
have four different biographies of Jesus in one
book. Irenseus says it is because " there are
four quarters of the earth in which we live, and
four universal winds." Instead of this artificial
reason he could have given a natural, a rational,
and a truthful reason. While primitive Chris-
tians, as we have seen, were divided into many
Formation of the Canon. 27
sects, the principal sects may be grouped into
three divisions : 1. The Petrine churches, com-
prising the church of Rome and other churches
which recognized Peter as the chief of the apos-
tles and the visible head of the church on earth;
2. The Pauline sects, which accepted Paul as
the true exponent of Christianity ; 3. The Johan-
nine or Eastern churches, which regarded John
as their founder. A collection of books to be
acceptable to all of these churches must con-
tain the favorite books of each. The First Gos-
pel, written about the time this church union
movement was inaugurated, was adopted by the
Petrine churches. The Second Gospel was also
highly valued by the church of Rome. The
Third Gospel, a revised and enlarged edition of
the Pauline Gospel of Marcion, had become the
standard authority of Pauline Christians. The
Fourth Gospel, which had superseded other and
older gospels, was generally read in the Johan-
nine churches. The Acts of the Apostles, writ-
ten for the purpose of healing the dissensions
that had arisen between the followers of Peter
and Paul, was acceptable to both Petrines and
Paulines. The Epistles of Paul were of course
received by the Pauline churches, while the First
Epistle of John was generally received by the
Eastern churches. The collection would not be
complete without a Revelation, and the Revela-
tion of John was selected.
The work instituted by Irenaeus was success-
ful. The three divisions of Christendom were
28 Authenticity of the Bible.
united, and the Catholic church was estab-
lished. But this cementing, although it held for
centuries, did not last, as was hoped, for all
time. The seams gave way, the divisions sepa-
rated, and to-day stand out as distinctly as they
did in the second century ; the Roman Catholic
church representing the Petrine, the Greek
church the Johannine, and the Protestant
churches to a great extent the Pauline Christians
of that early age. But while the church sepa-
rated, each retained all of the sixty-six canonical
books, save Revelation, which for a time was re-
jected by the Greek church.
The New Testament originally contained but
twenty books. To First Peter, Second John,
and the Shepherd of Hermas Irenseus attached
some importance, but did not place them in his
canon. Hebrews, James, Second Peter, Third
John, and Jude he ignored. Tertullian placed
in an appendix Hebrews, First Peter, Sec-
ond John, Jude, and the Shepherd of Hermas.
Clement of Alexandria classed as having infe-
rior authority, Hebrews, Second John, Jude,
First and Second Epistles of Clement (of Rome),
Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and
Revelation of Peter.
Regarding the competency of the founders of
the New Testament canon, Davidson says;
" Of the three fathers who contributed most
to its early growth, Irenseus was credulous and
blundering, Tertullian passionate and one-
sided, and Clement of Alexandria, imbued with
Formation of the Canon. 29
the treasures of Greek wisdom, was mainly oc-
cupied with ecclesiastical ethics" (Canon, p. 155).
"The three Fathers of whom we are speak-
ing had neither the ability nor the inclination
to examine the genesis of documents surrounded
with an apostolic halo. No analysis of their
authenticity was seriously contemplated " (Ibid,
p. 156).
Completion of the Canon.
The Christian canon, including the New Tes-
tament canon, assumed something like its pres-
ent form under the labors of Augustine and
Jerome toward the close of the fourth century.
St. Augustine's canon contained all of the books
now contained in the Old and New Testaments,
excepting Lamentations, which was excluded.
It contained, in addition to these, the apocry-
phal pieces belonging to Daniel, and the books
of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and
First and Second Maccabees.
St. Jerome's canon contained Lamentations,
which Augustine's canon excluded, and omitted
Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and First
and Second Maccabees, which Augustine's in-
cluded. Roman Catholics accept the canon of
Augustine, including Lamentations; Protestants,
generally, accept the canon of Jerome.
While Jerome included in his canon all the
books of the New Testament, he admitted that
Philemon, Hebrews, Second Peter, Second and
Third John, Jude, and Revelation were of
doubtful authority.
30 Authenticity of the Bible.
Referring to the work of Augustine a*ad Je-
rome, Davidson, says: " Both were unfitted for
the critical examination of such a topic "
{Canon, p. 200).
Christian Councils.
Many believe that the Council of Nice, held
in 325 a.d., determined what books should con-
stitute the Bible. This council did not deter-
mine the canon. So far as is known, the first
church council which acted upon this question
was the Synod of Laodicea which met in 365.
This council rejected the Apocryphal books
contained in Augustine's list, but admitted
Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. It excluded
Revelation.
Various councils, following this, adopted ca-
nonical lists. One council would admit certain
books and the next council would reject them.
The third council of Carthage in 397 adopted
the list of Augustine which admitted the Apoc-
ryphal books and Revelation and rejected La-
mentations.
The actions of none of these councils were
unanimous or decisive. The list of books
adopted was adopted simply by a majority vote.
A large minority of every council refused to
accept the list of the majority Some advo-
cated the admission of books that were rejected;
others opposed the admission of books that
were accepted. As late as the seventh century
(629), at the sixth Council of Constantinople,
Formation of the Canon. 31
many different canonical lists were presented for
ratification.
The damaging facts that I have adduced con-
cerning the formation of the Christian canon
are admitted in a large degree by one of the
most orthodox of authorities, McClintock and
Strong's " Cyclopedia of Biblical and Ecclesi-
astical Literature." Dr. McClintock says:
"The New Testament canon presents a re-
markable analogy to the canon of the Old Testa-
ment. The beginnings of both are obscure. . .
The history of the canon may be divided into
three periods. The first, extending to 170, in-
cludes the era of circulation and gradual col-
lection of the apostolic writings. The second
is closed in 303, separating the sacred from
other ecclesiastical writings. The third may be
defined by the third Council of Carthage,
397 A.O., in which a catalogue of the books of the
Scriptures was formally ratified by conciliar
authority. The first is characteristically a
period of tradition, the second of speculation,
and the third of authority, and we may trace
the features of the successive ages in the
course of the history of the canon. But how-
ever all this may have been, the complete canon
of the New Testament, as we now have it, was
ratified by the third Council of Carthage, 397
&.. 0., from which time it was generally accepted
by the Latin church, some of the books remain-
ing in doubt and disputed."
32 Authenticity of the Bible.
Concerning the work of these councils, Will-
iam Penn writes as follows:
" I say how do they know that these men dis-
cerned true from spurious? Now, sure it is,
that some of the Scriptures taken in by one
council were rejected by another for apocryphal,
and that which was left out by the former for
apocryphal was taken in by the latter for canoni-
cal " (Penn's Works, Yol. I., p. 302).
In regard to the character of these councils,
Dean Milman writes:
'6 It might have been supposed that nowhere
would Christianity appear in such commanding
majesty as in a council. . . . History shows
the melancholy reverse. Nowhere is Chris-
tianity less attractive, and if we look to the ordi-
nary tone and character of the proceedings, less
authoritative, than in the councils of the- church.
It is in general a fierce collision of two rival
factions, neither of which will yield, each of
which is solemnly pledged against conviction''
(History of Latin Christianity, Vol. I., p. 226).
The Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, and
Protestant canons, no two of which are alike,
were fixed by modern councils. The Council of
Trent (1545-1563) determined the Roman Catho-
lic canon. While a majority were in favor of
the canon of Augustine they were not agreed in
regard to the character and classification of the
books. There were four parties. The first ad-
vocated two divisions of the books, one to com-
prise the acknowledged books, the other the dis-
Formation of. the Canon. 33
puted books. The second party proposed three
divisions — the acknowledged books, the dis-
puted books of the New Testament, and the
Apocryphal books of the Old Testament. The
third party desired the list of books to be
named without determining their authority.
The fourth party demanded that all the books,
acknowledged, disputed, and apocryphal, be de-
clared canonical. This party triumphed.
At a council of the Greek church held in
Jerusalem in 1672, this church, which had al-
ways refused to accept Revelation, finally placed
it in the canon. The Greek canon contains
several apocryphal books not contained in the
Roman Catholic canon.
Both divisions of the Protestant church, Ger-
man and English, declared against the authority
of the Apocryphal books. The Westminster
Assembly (1647) formally adopted the list of
books contained in our Authorized Version of
the Bible.
Ancient Christian Scholars.
Most Christians believe that all of the books of
the Bible, and only the books of the Bible, have
been accepted as canonical by all Christians.
And yet, how far from this is the truth! Iu
every age of the church there have been Chris-
tians, eminent for their piety and learning, who
either rejected some of these books, or who
accepted as canonical books not contained in
the Bible.
34 Authenticity of the Bible.
Not one of the five men who contributed most
to form the canon, Irenseus, Tertullian, Clem-
ent, Jerome, and Augustine, accepted all of
these books.
Late in the second century Melito, Bishop of
Sardis, a contemporary of Irenseus, was deputed
to make a list of the books belonging to the Old
Testament. His list omitted Esther and La-
mentations.
The Muratori canon, which is supposed to
belong to the third century, omitted Hebrews,
James, First and Second Peter, and Third John.
The Apostolic canon omitted Revelation, and
included First and Second Clement and the
Apostolic Constitutions.
Of Origen, the great Christian Father of the
third century, " Chambers' Encyclopedia " says:
" Origen doubted the authority of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, of the Epistle of James, of
Jude, of the Second of Peter, and the Second
and Third of John; while, at the same time, he
was disposed to recognize as canonical certain
apocryphal scriptures, such as those of Hermas
and Barnabas." In addition to the apocryphal
books named, Origen also accepted as authori-
tative the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of
the Egyptians, Acts of Paul, and Preaching of
Peter. "
The Bev. Jeremiah Jones, a leading authority
on the canon, says: " Justin Martyr, Clemens
Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and the rest of the
primitive writers were wont to approve and cite
Formation of the Canon. 35
books which now all men know to be apocry-
phal " (Canon, p. 4).
Theodoret says that as late as the fifth cen-
tury many churches used the Gospel of Tatian
instead of the canonical Gospels. Gregory the
Great, at the beginning of the seventh, and
Alfric, at the close of the tenth century, ac-
cepted as canonical Paul's Epistle to the Laodi-
ceans.
Early in the fourth century the celebrated
church historian, Eusebius, gave a list of the
acknowledged and disputed books of the New
Testament. The disputed books — books which
some accepted and others rejected — were He-
brews, James, Second and Third John, Jude,
Kevelation, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of
Barnabas, Acts of Paul, and Kevelation of Peter.
Athanasius rejected Esther, and Epiphanius
accepted the Epistle of Jeremiah. Cyril, Bishop
of Jerusalem, and Gregory, Bishop of Constanti-
nople, both rejected Revelation.
Chrysostom, one of the greatest of church
divines, and, who gave to the sacred book of
Christians its name, omitted ten books from his
canon— First and Second Chronicles, Esther,
Job, and Lamentations, five books in the Old
Testament; and Second Peter, Second and Third
John, Jude, and Revelation, five books in the
New Testament.
Protestant Scholars.
Many Protestant scholars have questioned or
denied the correctness of the Protestant canon.
36 Authenticity of the Bible.
Calvin doubted Second and Third John and
Revelation. Erasmus doubted Hebrews, Sec-
ond and Third John, and Revelation. Zwingle
and Beza rejected Revelation. Dr. Lardner
questioned the authority of Hebrews, James,
Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude
and Revelation. Evanson rejected Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and nearly half of the Epistles.
Schleiermacher rejected First Timothy. Scaliger
rejected Second Peter. Davidson thinks that
Esther should be excluded from the canon,
Eichorn rejected Daniel and Jonah in the Old
Testament, and Second Timothy and Titus in
the New.
Dr. Whiston excluded the Song of Solomon,
and accepted as canonical more than twenty
books not found in the Bible. He says: " Can
anyone be so weak as to imagine Mark, and
Luke, and Jumes, and Jude, who were none of
them more than companions of the Apostles, to
be our sacred and unerring guides, while Barna-
bas, Thaddeus, Clement, Timothy, Hermas, Ig-
natius, and Polycarp, who were equally com-
panions of the same Apostles, to be of no
authority at all?" (Exact Time, p. 28).
The Rev. James Martineau, of England, says:
" If we could recover the Gospel of the He-
brews, and that of the Egyptians, it would be
difficult to give a reason why they should not
form a part of the New Testament; and an epis-
tle by Clement, the fellow laborer of Paul,
which has as good a claim to stand there as the
Formation of the Canon. 37
Epistle to the Hebrews, or the Gospel of Luke "
(Rationale of Religious Enquiry).
Archbishop Wake pronounces the writings
of the Apostolic Fathers " inspired," and says
that they contain " an authoritative declaration
of the Gospel of Christ " (Apostolic Fathers).
The church of Latter Day Saints, numbering
one half million adherents, and including some
able Bible scholars, believe that the modern
Book of Mormon is a part of God's Word, equal
in authority and importance to the Pentateuch
or the Four Gospels.
martin Cutter.
The greatest name in the records of the Protes-
tant church is Martin Luther. He is generally
recognized as its founder; he is considered one
of the highest authorities on the Bible; he de-
voted a large portion of his life to its study; he
made a translation of it for his people, a work
which is accepted as one of the classics of Ger-
man literature. With Luther the Bible super-
seded the church as a divine authority. And
yet this greatest of Protestants rejected no less
than six of the sixty-six books composing the
Protestant Bible.
Luther rejected the book of Esther. He says:
" I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that
I wish it did not exist." In his " Bondage of
the Will," he severely criticises the book.
He rejected the book of Jonah. He says:
" The history of Jonah is so monstrous as to be
38 Authenticity of the Bible.
absolutely incredible " (Colloquia, Chap. LX.,
Sec. 1 0).
He rejected Hebrews: "The Epistle to the
Hebrews is not by St. Paul; nor, indeed, by any
apostle " (Standing Preface to Luther's New
Testament).
He rejected the Epistle of James: " St. James'
Epistle is truly an epistle of straw " (Preface to
Edition of 1524).
He rejected Jude. "The Epistle of Jude," he
says, "allegeth stories and sayings which have
no place in Scripture " (Standing Preface).
He rejected Revelation. He says: " I can
discover no trace that it is established by the
Holy Spirit " (Preface to Edition of 1522).
Different Versions of the Bible. 39
OHAPTEE IV.
DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE
BIBLE.
The following is a brief description of the
principal versions, translations, and manuscripts
of the Bible :
Uersions of the 3ewi$h Scriptures.
Hebrew. — The greater portion of the Jewish
Scriptures was written in the ancient Hebrew
language, while a smaller portion was written in
the Aramaic or Chaldaic dialect of this language.
The written language of the Hebrew contained no
vowels. The meaning of many words was mere
conjecture. About one thousand years ago Jew-
ish scholars developed a system of vowel points
and made a revision of the Hebrew Scriptures
in what is known as the Masoretic text. The
early Christian versions of the Old Testament,
including that of the Roman Catholic church,
are based upon the earlier or consonantal text ;
the Protestant versions are based upon the later
or Masoretic text. The accepted Hebrew ver-
sions generally omitted the Apocryphal books.
Samaritan. — The Samaritan Bible, the canon-
ical Scriptures of the Samaritan Israelites, con-
40 Authenticity of the Bible.
tained but six books — the Pentateuch and what
is styled a corrupt version of Joshua. Some
scholars believe that the Samaritan Pentateuch
is the most correct version we have of this work.
Septuagint. — The Septuagint was a Greek
translation of the Jewish Scriptures, including
the Apocryphal books. We are told that about
285 B.C. seventy scholars, each in a separate cell,
translated all of these books. The translations,
it is stated, were exactly alike, a proof of divine
supervision. This story is a fiction. Instead
of seventy translations of fifty books, there was
one translation of five books. The Pentateuch
alone was translated at this time. The Prophets,
the Hagiographa, and the Apocrypha were
translated at various times during the succeed-
ing three hundred years. The Septuagint was
the version used by the Hellenistic Jews and by
the primitive Christians.
Ancient Christian Uersions.
Peshito. — The Peshito is probably the oldest
version of the Christian Bible. It is in Aramaic,
and is the Bible of Syrian Christians. It omits
Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jade,
and Revelation.
Egyptian. — There were two versions of the
Egyptian Bible, the Thebaic, written in the lan-
guage of Upper Egypt, and the Memphitic or
Coptic, written in the language of Lower Egypt.
These versions included the Apocrypha and
excluded Revelation.
Different Versions of the Bible. 41
Ethiopio — This was the Bible of Ethiopian
Christians. The Old Testament contained four
divisions: 1. The Law ; 2. Kings; 3. Solomon;
4. The Prophets. It also contained the Book
of Enoch, a book found in no other version. The
New Testament omitted Revelation and included
the Apostolic Constitutions.
Gothic. — This version was made by a Gothic
bishop in the fourth century. It omitted four
of the principal books of the Old Testament,
First and Second Samuel, and First and Second
Kings.
Italic. — The Italic version was one of the
earliest Latin versions of the Bible. The New
Testament contained but twenty-four books. It
omitted Hebrews, James, and Second Peter.
Vulgate. — The Vulgate, one of the most im-
portant versions of the Bible, is the Latin ver-
sion made by Jerome about the beginning of
the fifth century. It is the standard version of
the Roman Catholic church. It has undergone
many revisions and consequently many changes.
It now includes the Apocryphal books which
Jerome did not accept as canonical.
Ancient manuscripts.
The three most important Greek manuscripts,
those which are recognized as the highest
authorities in determining the text of the Bible,
are the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the Alexan-
drian.
Sinaitic. — The Sinaitic Manuscript, now pre-
42 Authenticity of the Bible.
served in St. Petersburg, was discovered by Dr.
Teschendorf at a convent near Mount Sinai. It
is believed by many to be the oldest manuscript
of the New Testament extant, dating back, it is
supposed by some, to the fourth century. It
contains twenty-nine books — the twenty-seven
canonical books, the Epistle of Barnabas, and
the Shepherd of Hermas.
Vatican. — This manuscript, now in the Vatican
library at Rome, belongs, it is claimed, to the
fourth century. The Old Testament contains
the Apocrypha. The New Testament is a muti-
lated copy, containing only the Four Gospels,
Acts, and a part of the Epistles.
Alexandrian. — The Alexandrian Manuscript,
now in the British Museum, belongs, it is said,
to the fifth or sixth century. The Old Testa-
ment includes the Apocryphal books. The New
Testament includes the canonical books, and in
addition to these the First and Second Epistles
of Clement.
modern Uersions,
Luther's. — The principal German version of
the Bible was made by the leader of the Prot-
estant Reformation. On account of its superior
literary merits and its large circulation it is,
next to our Authorized Version, the most impor-
tant of the Protestant versions. Luther placed
the Apocryphal books in an appendix at the
end of the Old Testament, and the books of the
New Testament which he rejected in an appen-
dix at the end of the New.
Different Versions of the Bible. 43
Wicliffe's. — The translation of Wicliffe,
which appeared in the latter part of the four-
teenth century, was the first English translation
of the Bible.
Tyndale's. — Tyndale commenced his English
translation of the Bible about the same time
that Luther commenced his German translation.
He did not live to complete it, and a portion of
the Old Testament was translated by others.
King James. — The Authorized English Version,
commonly called the King James Bible, was
published in 1611. It was made by forty-seven
English scholars, working in six companies —
two at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at
Westminster. The basis of this version is Tyn-
dale's translation. The Apocryphal books,
which were not accepted as canonical by the
English church, were placed in an appendix.
They are now generally omitted. The King
James Bible is admittedly one of the most in-
correct versions; but dressed in the strong,
quaint English of Shakspere's time it possesses
considerable literary merit. It has been trans-
lated into nearly every tongue, and has had a
larger circulation than all others combined.
New Version. — The new or Revised Ver-
sion of the Bible is a revision of the
King James version. The revision was made
by a Committee of twenty-seven English
scholars, whose work was revised by an Amer-
ican committee. It was begun in 1870 and fin-
ished in 1882. In this version the matter is
44 Authenticity of the Bible.
divided into paragraphs instead of chapters and
verses.
Douay. — The Douay Bible is an English trans-
lation of the Vulgate. It is the standard Eng-
lish version of the Roman Catholic church.
The foregoing are but a few of the numerous
versions of the Bible, ancient and modern, that
have appeared. Nearly every nation of Europe
has from one to a score. Luther's version is
nearly 400 years old, and yet Germany had sev-
enteen translations, and consequently seventeen
versions, before Luther's was published. Eng-
land had many versions besides those named.
Authorship and Dates. 45
CHAPTER V.
AUTHORSHIP AND DATES.
Upon the authenticity of the books of the Bi-
ble depends in a large measure their value as
authorities. These books are filled with strange
and marvelous stories. Are these stories true
or false? If true, we should accept them; if
false, reject them. From whence do these writ-
ings come ?
If you hear a startling statement on the street
your disposition to accept or reject it will de-
pend largely upon the character of its author.
If he is a reputable person you will be disposed
to accept it; if it does not come from a reputa-
ble person, or if you are unable to discover its
author, you will be disposed to reject it. Chris-
tian priests demand the acceptance of these
books as infallible truth. What evidence do
they adduce to justify this demand? Where
did they obtain these books ? When were they
written ? Who wrote them ? What is the rep-
utation of their authors for intelligence and
veracity ? Were they learned and astute men,
or were they weak and credulous men? Were
they good men, or were they bad men? If able
4t> Authenticity of the Bible.
men wrote them, may they not have been im-
postors? If good men wrote them, may they
not have been mistaken?
These priests claim to have a knowledge of
the authorship of all, or nearly all, the books of
the Bible. With one or two exceptions, they
have assigned authors to all the books of the
Old Testament, and to these exceptions they
have even assigned " probable " authors. They
also claim a great antiquity for them — claim that
they were written from four hundred to fifteen
hundred years before the Christian era. The
books of the New Testament, they affirm, were
all written in the first century, and by those
whose names they bear.
The following table gives the authorship and
date of composition, according to orthodox au-
thorities, of the books composing the Protest-
ant canon. It is not claimed that every book
was written in the year assigned for its compo-
sition, but that it was written in or prior to the
year assigned.
Old testament.
BOOK
AUTHOR
DATE
Genesis
Moses
B.C. 1451
Exodus
<<
<< <(
Leviticus
<<
(< tt
Numbers
«<
It tt
Deuteronomy
<«
It tt
Joshua
Joshua
" 1426
Judges
Samuel
" 1049
Kuth
" (?)
<< (<
1 Samuel
<(
<( tt
Authorship and Dates.
47
BOOK
AUTHOR
DATE
2 Samuel
Gad <fe Nathan
B.C
\ 1016
1 Kings
Jeremiah
n
600
2 Kings
u
tt
<(
1 Chronicles
Ezra
It
456
2 Chronicles
u
<<
tt
Ezra
<(
((
it
Nehemiah
Nehemiah
««
433
Esther
Mordecai (?)
It
440
Job
Job
<(
1520
Psalms
David
<(
1020
Proverbs
Solomon
It
980
Ecclesiastes
«<
It
<(
S. of Solomon
(<
((
1016
Isaiah
Isaiah
«(
700
Jeremiah
Jeremiah
tt
585
Lamentations
(i
((
«<
Ezekiel
Ezekiel
tt
575
Daniel
Daniel
((
534
Hosea
Hosea
««
780
Joel
Joel
<«
800
Amos
Amos
<«
785
Obadiah
Obadiah
«
588
Jonah
Jonah
«(
856
Micah
Micah
((
700
Nahum
Nahum
((
698
Habakkuk
Habakkuk
((
600
Zephaniah
Zephaniah
«(
609
Haggai
Haggai
((
583
Zechariah
Zechariah
U
520
Malachi
Malachi
Hew testament.
((
420
BOOK
AUTHOR
DATE
Matthew
Matthew
A.D.
40
Mark
Mark
(1
63
Luke
Luke
««
««
48 Authenticity of the Bible.
BOOK
AUTHOR
DATE
John
John
A.D
.97
Acts
Luke
<(
63
Romans
Paul
<<
57
1 Corinthians
«
fi
<(
2 Corinthians
<(
<(
<«
Galatians
«<
<<
65
Epliesians
«
M
62
Philippians
<«
u
<(
Colossians
<<
«<
61
IThessalonians "
((
52
2Thessalonians "
<(
<(
1 Timothy
n
CI
64
2 Timothy
it
«<
65
Titus
(t
((
«<
Philemon
<<
((
61
Hebrews
<<
<<
62
James
James
«(
<«
1 Peter
Peter
((
64
2 Peter
<(
(1
<«
1 John
John
((
68
2 John
<<
((
(<
3 John
it
«
69
Jude
Jude
((
64
Revelation
John
<«
96
The names and dates given in the foregoing
table are, with a few exceptions, paraded as es-
tablished facts. And yet the greater portion of
them are mere assumptions, without even the
shadow of proof upon which to base them.
Many of them are self-evidently false — are con-
tradicted by the contents of the books them-
selves. The authorship of at least fifty books of
the Bible — thirty in the Old Testament and
twenty in the New — is unknown.
Authorship and Dates. 49
These books are not as old as claimed. The
books of the Old Testament, instead of having
been written from 1520 to 420 B.C., were proba-
bly written from 1000 to 100 B.C. The books of
the New Testament, instead of having all been
written in the first century, were, many of them,
not written until the second century.
In regard to this subject, Prof. George T.
Ladd of Tale College writes : " The authorship
and date of most of the Old Testament writings,
and of some of the New Testament, will never
be known with certainty " (What Is the Bible ?
p. 294).
The following six chapters will be devoted to
an examination of the question of the authen-
ticity of the books of the Bible. I shall attempt
to show that the greater portion of these books,
including the most important ones, are not au-
thentic— were not written by . the authors
claimed, nor at the time claimed; that they are
anonymous documents, written or compiled for
the most part at a later age than that in which
their reputed authors are supposed to have
lived.
50 Authenticity of the Bible.
CHAPTEK VI.
THE PENTATEUCH.
The first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Ex-
odus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy —
collectively called the Pentateuch — are the most
important books of the Old Testament. The
three great Semitic religions, Judaism, Chris-
tianity, and Mohammedanism, are all, to a great
extent, based upon them.
These books, orthodox Christians affirm, were
written by Moses at least 1,450 years before the
Christian era. "This sacred code," says Dr.
Adam Clarke, " Moses delivered complete to the
Hebrews sometime before his death." In mod-
ern versions of the Bible, Genesis is styled the
First Book of Moses ; Exodus, the Second
Book of Moses; Leviticus, the Third Book of
Moses ; Numbers, the Fourth Book of Moses,
and Deuteronomy, the Fifth Book of Moses.
Their very high authority rests upon the sup-
posed fact of their Mosaic authorship and great
antiquity. To disprove these — to show that
the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, nor
at this early age, but centuries later by un-
known writers — is to largely impair, if not
entirely destroy, its authority as a religious
The Pentateuch. 51
oracle. And this is what modern criticism has
done.
Arguments for mosaic Authorship.
The following passage is the chief argument
relied upon to prove the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch :
" And it came to pass, that when Moses had
made an end of writing the words of this law in
a book, until they were finished, that Moses
commanded the Levites, which bore the ark of
the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book
of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the
covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be
there for a witness against thee " (Deut. xxxi,
24^26).
This was written for a purpose. Its sequel
appears in 2 Kings. During the reign of Josiah,
Hilkiah the high priest discovered a " book of
the law" in the temple. " And Hilkiah the high
priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have
found the book of the law in the house of the
Lord "(2 Kings xxii, 8).
This book was the book of Deuteronomy,
written, not in the time of Moses, but in the
time of Josiah, more than eight centuries later.
Hilkiah needed the book and he "found" it.
It was written by him or for him. Holland's
great critic, Dr. Kuenen, says: " There is no
room to doubt that the book was written with a
view to the use that Hilkiah made of it"
(Kuenen's Hexateuch, p. 215).
52 Authenticity of the Bible.
Dr. Oort, another able Dutch scholar, professor
of Oriental languages at Amsterdam, says: " The
book was certainly written about the time of its
discovery. It is true that it introduces Moses
as uttering the precepts and exhortations of
which it consists, just before the people enter
Canaan. But this is no more than a liter-
ary fiction. The position of affairs assumed
throughout the book is that of Judah in the
time of Josiah " (Bible for Learners, vol. ii, p.
331).
In support of this unanimous conclusion of
the critics, Dr. Briggs presents the following
long array of irrefutable arguments:
" The reasons for the composition of Deuteron-
omy in the time of Josiah according to the later
hypothesis are: (1) Expressions which indicate
a period subsequent to the Conquest (ii, 12; xix,
14); (2) the law of the king, which implies the
reign of Solomon (xvii, ]4-20); (3) the one su-
preme judicatory of the time of Jehosaphat
(xvii, 8); (4) the one central altar of the times
of Hezekiah (xii, 5 seq.); (5) the return to Egypt
in ships not conceivable before the time of
Manasseh (xxviii, 68); (6) the forms of idolatry
of the middle period of the monarchy (iv, 19;
xvii, 3); (7) no trace of Deuteronomy in writings
prior to Jeremiah; (8) the point of view indi-
cates an advanced style of theological reflection;
(9) the prohibition of Mazzebah (xvi, 22) re-
garded as lawful in Isaiah (xix, 19); (10) the
style implies a long development of the art of
The Pentateuch. 53
Hebrew oratory, and the language is free from
archaism, and suits the times preceding Jere-
miah; (11) the doctrine of the love of God and
his faithfulness with the term ' Yahweh thy
God ' presuppose the experience of the prophet
Hosea; (12) the humanitarianism of Deuteron-
omy shows an ethical advance beyond Amos
and Isaiah and prepares the way for Jeremiah
and Ezekiel; (13) ancient laws embedded in the
code account for the penalties for their infraction
in 2 Kings xxii; (14) ancient laws of war are as-
sociated with laws which imply the wars of the
monarchy, and have been influenced by Amos"
(The Hexateuch, p. 261).
No book had been deposited in the ark as the
writer stated. At the dedication of Solomon's
temple the ark was opened, but it contained no
book. "There was nothing in the ark save the
two tables of stone, which Moses put there at
Horeb " (1 Kings viii, 5-9).
In the Pentateuch it is also stated that Moses,
at the command of God, wrote certain covenants
(Ex. xxxiv, 27), recorded the curse of Amal@k
(Ex. xvii, 14), and made a list of the stations be-
tween the Red Sea and the Jordan (Num. xxxiii);
likewise that he wrote a song (Deut. xxxi,
22). The absurdity of adducing these to prove
that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is thus ex-
posed by Briggs:
"When the author of the Pentateuch says
that Moses wrote one or more codes of law, that
he wrote a song, that he recorded a certain
54 Authenticity of the Bible.
memorandum, it would appear that having speci-
fied such of his materials as were written by-
Moses, he would have us infer that the other
materials came from other sources of informa-
tion. But it has been urged the other way;
namely, that, because it is said that Moses
wrote the codes of the covenant and the Deu-
teronomic code, he also wrote all the laws of the
Pentateuch ; that because he wrote the song
Deut. xxxii, he wrote all the other pieces of
poetry in the Pentateuch, that because he re-
corded the list of stations and the memorial
against Amalek, he recorded all the other histori-
cal events of the Pentateuch. It is probable that
no one would so argue did he not suppose it
was necessary to maintain the Mosaic author-
ship of the Pentateuch at every cost " (Hexa-
teuch, pp. 10, 11).
Again, it has been argued that Christ and
some of the writers of the New Testament
recognize Moses as the author of the Penta-
teuch. Such expressions as " the law of Moses,"
"the book of Moses," "Moses said," etc., occur
a few times. These expressions are explained
and this argument answered by the following:
1. It is not denied by critics that Moses was the
legislator of the Jews and promulgated certain
laws. 2. An anonymous book is usually called
after the leading character of the book. 3. At
this time the traditional theory of the Mosaic
authorship was generally accepted. Of Christ's
mention of Moses, Dr. Davidson says; "The
The Pentateuch. 55
venerable authority of Christ himself has no
proper bearing on the question."
Arguments Against mosaic Authorship.
That the Pentateuch was not written by Moses,
that it is an anonymous work belonging to a
later age, is clearly proven by the following :
1. There is no proof that Moses ever claimed V
to be the author of the Pentateuch. There is
nothing in the work, neither is there anything
outside of it, to indicate that he was its author. V
2. The ancient Hebrews did not believe that
he wrote it. Renau says : " The opinion which
attributes the composition of the Pentateuch
to Moses seems quite modern ; it is very cer-
tain that the ancient Hebrews never dreamed of
regarding their legislator as their historian. The
ancient documents appeared to them absolutely
impersonal, and they attached to them no
author's name " (History of Semitic Lan-
guages, Book II., chapter i).
3. The Pentateuch was written in the Hebrew
language. The Hebrew of the Bible did not ex-
ist in the time of Moses. Language is a growth.
It takes centuries to develop it. It took a
thousand years to develop the English lan-
guage. The Hebrew of the Bible was not
brought from Egypt, but grew in Palestine. Re-
ferring to this language, De Wette says : "With-
out doubt it originated in the land [Canaan] or
was still further developed therein after the He-
brew and other Canaanitish people had migrated
56 Authenticity of the Bible.
thither from the Northern country" (Old Testa-
ment, Part II.). Gesenius says that the Hebrew
language scarcely antedates the time of David.
4. Not only is it true that the Hebrew lan-
guage did not exist, but it is urged by critics
that no written language, as we understand it, ex-
isted in "Western Asia in the time of Moses. Prof.
Andrew Norton says: "For a long time after
the supposed date of the Pentateuch wejind no
proof of the existence of a book or even an in-
scription in proper alphabetical characters
among the nations by whom the Hebrews were
surrounded " (The Pentateuch, p. 44). Hiero-
glyphics were then in use, and it is not to be sup-
posed that a wort as large as the Pentateuch was
"written or engraved in hieroglyphics and car-
ried about by this wandering tribe of ignorant
A J Israelites.
5. Much of the Pentateuch is devoted to the
history of Moses; but excepting a few brief com-
positions attributed to him and quoted by the
author he is always referred to in the third per-
son. The Pentateuch contains a biography, not
an, autobiography of Moses.
6. It contains an account of the death and
burial of Moses which he could not have written :
" So Moses, the servant of the Lord, died
there in the land of Moab. . . . And he
buried him in a valley of the land of Moab "
(Deut. xxxiv, 5, 6).
" And the children of Israel wept for Moses in
the plains of Moab thirty days" (8).
V
The Pentateuch. 57
Orthodox commentators attempt to remove
this difficulty by supposing that the last chap-
ter of Deuteronomy belongs to the book of
Joshua, and that Joshua recorded the death of
Moses. The same writer, referring to the ap-
pointment of Joshua as the successor of Moses,
says : "And Joshua the son of Nun was full of
the spirit of wisdom" (Deut. xxxiv, 9). If Joshua
wrote this, however full of the spirit of wisdom
he may have been, he certainly was not full of
the spirit of modesty. Joshua did not write
this chapter.
7. "No man knoweth of his [Moses'] sepul-
chre unto this day" (Deut. xxxiv, 6).
That the authorship of this chapter should
ever have been attributed to either Moses or
Joshua is incomprehensible. The language
plainly shows that not merely one but many
generations had elapsed between the time of
Moses and the time that it was written.
8. While the advocates of the Mosaic author-
ship have, without proof, asserted that Joshua
wrote the book of Joshua and the conclusion of
Deuteronomy, the Higher Critics have demon-
strated the common authorship of Deuteronomy
and a large portion of Joshua. As all the events
recorded in Joshua occurred after the death of
Moses, he could not have been the author of
Deuteronomy.
9. " They [the Israelites] did eat manna until
they came unto the borders of Canaan" (Ex.
xvi, 35).
V
58 Authenticity of the Bible.
This passage was written after the Israelites
settled in Canaan and ceased to subsist on
manna. And this was not until after the death
of Moses.
\/ 10. "The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime;
but the children of Esau succeeded them, when
they had destroyed them from before them, and
dwelt in their stead ; as Israel did unto the land
of his possession, which the Lord gave unto
them" (Deut. ii, 12).
This refers to the conquest of Canaan and
was written after that event.
v 11. " Arid while the children of Israel were in
the wilderness they found a man that gathered
sticks upon the Sabbath day" (Num. xv, 32).
When this was written the children of Israel
were no longer in the wilderness. Their sojourn
there is referred to as a past event. As Moses
died while they were still in the wilderness —
that is, before they had entered the promised
land — it could not have been written by him.
12. "Thou shalt eat it within thy gates"
(Deut. xv, 22).
The phrase, "within thy gates," occurs in the
Pentateuch about twenty-five times. It refers to
the gates of the cities of the Israelites, which they
did not inhabit until after the death of Moses.
^ 13. " Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and
my judgments, . . . that the land spew not
you out also, when ye defile it, as it spewed
out the nations that were before you" (Lev.
xviii, 26, 28).
V
The Pentateuch. 59
When Moses died the nations alluded to still
occupied the land and had not been expelled.
14. " And Abraham called the name of the
place Jehovah-jireh : as it is said to this day, In
the mount of the Lord it shall be seen" (Gen.
xxii, 14).
This is one of the passages adduced by the
critics of the seventeenth century against the
Mosaic authorship of these books. It implies
the conquest and a long occupancy of the land
by the Israelites.
15. " And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba ; the /
same is Hebron in the land of Canaan" (Gen.
xxiii, 2). " And Jacob came . . . unto the
city of Arbah, which is Hebron" (xxxv, 27).
Moses' uncle was named Hebron, and from
him the Hebronites were descended. After the
Conquest this family settled in Kir jath-arba and
changed the name of the city to Hebron.
16. "And Rachel died and was buried in the y
way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem" (Gen.
xxxv, 19).
The Hebrew name of Bethlehem was not given J/
to this city until after the Israelites had con-
quered and occupied it.
17. " For only Og, king of Bashan, remained
of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead
was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of
the children of Ammon?" (Deut. iii, 11.)
This is another passage relied upon by the
early critics to disprove the Mosaic authorship
of the Pentateuch. The writer's reference to
60 Authenticity of the Bible.
the bedstead of Og, which was still preserved
as a relic at Rabbath, indicates a time long sub-
sequent to the conquest of Bashan.
18. "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's
landmark, which they of old time have set in
thine inheritance " (Deut. xix, 14).
This refers to the ancient landmarks set by
the Israelites when they obtained possession of
Canaan, and was written centuries after that
time.
^ 19. "And Jair the son of Manasseh went and
took the small towns thereof, and called them
Havoth-jair " (Num. xxzii, 41).
The above is evidently a misstatement of
an event recorded in Judges :
"And after him [Tola] arose Jair, a Gileadite,
and judged Israel twenty and two years. And
he had thirty sons, . . . and they had
thirty cities, which are called Havoth-jair unto
this day " (Jud. x, 3, 4).
Jair was judge of Israel from 1210 to 1188
B.C., or from 241 to 263 years after the date as-
signed for the writing of the Pentateuch.
20. " And Nobah went and took Kenath, and
the villages thereof, and called it Nobah, after
his own name " (Num. xxxii 42).
Referring to this and the preceding passage,
Dr. Oort says : " It is certain that Jair, the
Gileadite, the conqueror of Bashan, after whom
thirty places were called Jair's villages, lived in
the time of the Judges, and that a part of
Bashan was conquered at a still later period by
The Pentateuch. 61
a certain Nobah" (Bible for Learners, vol. i, p.
329).
21. " Jair the son of Manasseh took all the
country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri
and Maachathi; and called them after his own
name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this day" (Deut.
iii, 14).
Even if Jair had lived in the time of Moses,
the phrase "unto this day" shows that it was
written long after the event described. '
22. " And when Abram heard that his brother
was taken captive, he armed his trained serv-
ants, born in his own house, three hundred and
eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan " (Gen.
xiv, 14).
This passage could not have been written be-
fore Dan existed. In Judges (xviii, 26-29) the
following account of the origin of this place is
given : " And the children of Dan went their
way; . . . and came unto Laish, unto a peo-
ple that were at quiet and secure; and they
smote them with the edge of the sword, and
burnt the city with fire. . . . And they
built a city, and dwelt therein. And they called
the name of the city Dan." This is placed after
the death of Samson, and Samson died, accord-
ing to Bible chronology, 1120 B.C. — 331 years
after Moses died.
23. "And these are the kings that reigned in
the land of Edom before there reigned any
king over the children of Israel " (Gen. xxxvi,
31).
62 Authenticity of the Bible.
This could not have been written before the
kingdom of Israel was established; for the
writer is familiar with the fact that kings have
reigned in Israel. Saul, the first king of Israel,
/began to reign 356 years after Moses.
24. " And bis [Israel's] king shall be higher
than Agag" (Num. xxiv, 7).
This refers to Saul's defeat of Agag. " And
he [Saul] took Agag the king of the Amalekites
alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with
the edge of the sword " (1 Sam. xv, 8). The de-
feat of Agag is placed in 1067 B.C., 384 years af-
ter Moses.
25. " The sceptre shall not depart from
Judah, . . . until Shiloh come " (Gen. xlix, 10).
These words are ascribed to Jacob; but they
could not have been written before Judah re-
ceived the sceptre, which was not until David
ascended the throne, 396 years after the death
of Moses.
26. "And the Canaanite was then in the
land " (Gen. xii, 6).
When this was written the Canaanite had
ceased to be an inhabitant of Palestine. As a
remnant of the Canaanites inhabited this coun-
try up to the time of David, it could not have
been written prior to his time.
27. "The Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt
then in the land " (Gen. xiii, 7).
This, like the preceding passage, could not
have been written before the time of David.
The Perizzites, also, inhabited Palestine for a
The Pentateuch. 63
long period after the conquest. In the time of
the Judges "the children of Israel dwelt among
the . . . Perizzites " (Jud. iii, 5).
28. " The first of the first fruits of thy land
thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord thy
God " (Ex. xxiii, 19).
This was not written before the time of Sol-
omon; for God had no house prior to the erec-
tion of the temple, 1004 B.C., 447 years after
Moses. When David proposed to build him a
house, he forbade it and said :
"I have not dwelt in any house since the
time that I brought up the children of Israel
out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked
in a tent and in a tabernacle " (2 Sam. vii, 6).
The tabernacle itself was a tent (Tent of
Meeting). During all this time no house was
ever used as a sanctuary.
29. " One from among the brethren shalt /
thou set king over thee. . . . But he shall
not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the
people to return to Egypt, to the end that he
should multiply horses. . . . Neither shall
he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn
not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to
himself silver and gold " (Deut. xvii, 15-17).
" And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of
horses " (1 Kings iv, 26). " And Solomon had
horses brought out of Egypt " (x, 28). " And he
had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three
hundred concubines: and his wives turned away
his heart " (xi, 3). " The weight of gold that
y
64 Authenticity of the Bible.
came to Solomon in one year was six hundred
three score and six talents of gold " (x, 14).
"And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem
as stones " (27).
Nothing can be plainer than that this statute
in Deuteronomy was written after Solomon's
reign. The extravagance and debaucheries of
this monarch had greatly impoverished and cor-
rupted the kingdom, and to prevent a recurrence
of such excesses this law was enacted.
30. " If there arise a matter too hard for thee
in judgment, . . . thou shalt come unto the
priests the Levites, and unto the judge that
shall be in those days, and enquire; and they
shall show thee the sentence of judgment"
(Deut. xvii, 8, 9).
This court was established by Jehoshaphat
(2 Chron. xix, 8-11). Jehoshaphat commenced
his reign 914 B.C., 537 years after Moses.
V 31. " But in the place which the Lord shall
choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt of-
fer thy burnt offerings, and there shalt thou do
all that I command thee " (Deut. xii, 14).
" Is it not he [the Lord] whose high places
and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away,
and said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall wor-
ship before this altar?" (Is. xxxvi, 7).
Up to the time of Hezekiah the Hebrews wor-
shiped at many altars. Hezekiah removed these
altars and established the one central altar at
Jerusalem. This was in 726 B.C. — 725 years after
Moses.
The Pentateuch. 65
32. " And the Lord shall bring thee into f
Egypt again with ships " (Deut. xxviii, 68).
This, critics affirm, was written when Psamet-
icus was king of Egypt. He reigned from 663
to 609 B.C.
33. " Neither shalt thou set thee up any image
[pillar]" (Deut. xvi, 22).
This proves the late origin of the Pentateuch
or at least of Deuteronomy. Isaiah (xix, 19)
instructs them to do the very thing which they
are here forbidden to do, and as he would not
have advised a violation of the law it is evident
that this statute could not have existed in his
time. Isaiah died about 750 years after Moses
died.
34. The worship of the sun, moon, and stars
by the Jews, is mentioned and condemned
(Deut. iv, 19 ; xvii, 3). This nature worship was
adopted by them in the reign of Manasseh, 800
years after Moses.
35. " Wherefore it is said in the book of the K/
Wars of the Lord, what he did in the Red Sea,
and in the brooks of Anion " (Num. xxi, 14).
The author of the Pentateuch here cites a
book older than the Pentateuch, which gives an
account of the journeyings of the Israelites
from Egypt to Moab — from the Exodus to the
end of Moses' career.
36. " And thou shalt write upon the stones all
the words of this law very plainly" (Deut. xxvii, 8).
" And he [Joshua] wrote there upon the stones
a copy of the law of Moses" (Josh, viii, 32).
/
66 Authenticity of the Bible.
Christians affirm that the Law of Moses and
the Pentateuch are one. That this Law of
Moses was not the one hundred and fifty thou-
sand words of the Pentateuch is shown by the
fact that after the death of Moses it was all en-
graved upon a stone altar.
V 37. " Now the man Moses was very meek,
above all the men which were upon the face of
the earth" (Num. xii, 3).
No writer would bestow such fulsome praise
upon himself. This was written by a devout
admirer of Moses, but it was not written by
Moses.
m 38. "And this is the blessing wherewith
Moses the man of God blessed the children of
Israel before his death " (Deut. xxxiii, 1).
There are three reasons for rejecting the Mo-
saic authorship of this: Moses is spoken of in
laudatory terms; he is spoken of in the third
person; his death is referred to as an event that
is already past.
^ 39. " And there arose not a prophet since in
Israel like unto Moses " (Deut. xxxiv, 10).
Not only is the highest praise bestowed upon
Moses, a thing which he would not have done,
but the language clearly shows that it was writ-
ten centuries after the time he lived.
a 40. The religious history of the Hebrews em-
braces three periods of time, each covering cen-
turies. During the first period the worship of
Jehovah was confined to no particular place ;
during the second it was confined to the holy
The Pentateuch. 67
city, Jerusalem; during the third it was con-
fined, not merely to Jerusalem, but to the temple
itself. There are writings in the Pentateuch
belonging to each of these periods. The Ency-
clopedia Britannica declares that this fact alone
affords overwhelming disproof of Mosaic author-
ship.
41. The religion of the Pentateuch was not a /
revelation, but an evolution. The priestly
offices, the feasts, the sacrifices, and other relig-
ious observances underwent many changes, these
changes representing different stages of develop-
ment in Israel's religion and requiring centuries
of time to effect.
42. The legislation of the Pentateuch was also ^
the growth of centuries. Some of the minor
codes are much older than the documents con-
taining them. There is legislation older than
David, 1055 b.c — probably as old as Moses, 1451
B.C. . There is legislation belonging to the time
of Josiab, 626 B.C., of Ezekiel, 575 B.C., of
Ezra, 456 B.C. Would it not be absurd to claim
that all the laws of England from Alfred to
Victoria were the work of one mind, Alfred ?
And is it less absurd to claim that all the laws
of the Jews from Moses to Ezra were instituted
by Moses ? y
43. The Pentateuch abounds with repetitions
and contradictions. The first two chapters of
Genesis contain two accounts of the Creation
differing in every important particular. In the
sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters of Genesis
68 Authenticity of the Bible.
two different and contradictory accounts of the
Deluge are intermingled. Exodus and Deut-
eronomy each contain a copy of the Decalogue,
the two differing as to the reason assigned for
the institution of the Sabbath. There are several
different versions of the call of Abraham; differ-
ent and conflicting stories of the Egyptian
plagues; contradictory accounts of the conquest
of Canaan.
CDc ttlork of Uariojis Authors and Compilers.
44. The four preceding arguments suggest
the concluding and most important one. The
character of the writings of the Pentateuch pre-
clude the possibility of unity of authorship, and
consequently the Mosaic authorship of the work
as a whole. The books of the Pentateuch were
not all composed by one author. The book of
Genesis is not the work of one author. The
first two chapters of Genesis were not written
by the same writer. The Pentateuch was writ-
ten by various writers and at various times.
The Pentateuch comprises four large docu-
ments known as the Elohistic and Jehovistic
documents, and the Deuteronomic and Priestly
Codes. They are distinguished by the initial
letters E, J, D, and P. E and J include the
greater portion of Genesis and extend through
the other books of the Pentateuch, as well as
through Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.
D includes the greater portion of Deuteronomy,
fragments of the preceding books, and a large
The Pentateuch. 69
portion of Joshua. P includes the greater por-
tion of the middle books of the Pentateuch and
smaller portions of the other books.
The author of each of these documents incor-
porated into his work one or more older docu-
ments. These four works were afterwards united
by successive editors or redactors. E and J
were first fused into one. A subsequent redactor
united D with this, and still later another united
this compilation with P.
In addition to these principal documents there
are several minor codes, chief of which is the
Holiness Code comprising ten chapters of Leviti-
cus, xvii-xxvi. There are also several poems
written by various authors. Thus the Penta-
teuch instead of being the product of one mind
is the work of many writers and compilers,
probably twenty or more.
These documents, especially the principal
ones, notwithstanding the intermingling of their
contents, are easily distinguished and separated
from each other by Bible critics. The thoughts
of the human mind, like the features of the hu-
man face, controlled by the law of variation, as-
sume different forms. We who are familiar
with faces have no difficulty in distinguishing
one face from another. ]^o two faces are alike.
Critics who have devoted their lives to litera-
ture can distinguish the writings of individuals
almost as readily as we distinguish the faces of
individuals.' There are certain idioms of lan-
guage, certain peculiarities of style, belong-
jo Authenticity of the Bible.
ing to each writer. The language and style of
these documents are quite dissimilar. To quote
Dr. Briggs: " There is as great a difference in
style between the documents of the Hexateuch
as there is between the Four Gospels." The
principal documents are thus described by this
critic:
" E is brief, terse, and archaic; graphic, plas-
tic, and realistic; written in the theocratic in-
terest of the kingdom of God. J is poetical and
descriptive, the best narrative in the Bible, giv-
ing us the history of the kingdom of redemp-
tion. D is rhetorical and hortatory, practical
and earnest, written in the more theological
interest of the training of the nation in the
fatherly instruction of God. P is annalistic and
diffuse, fond of names and dates, written in the
interest of the priestly order, and emphasizing
the sovereignty of the Holy God and the sanctity
of the divine institutions" (Hexateuch, p. 265).
Each document abounds with characteristic
words and phrases peculiar to that document.
Holzinger notes 108 belonging to E and 125 be-
longing to J. Canon Driver gives 41 belonging
to D and 50 belonging to P. One of the chief dis-
tinguishing marks is the term used to designate
the Deity. In E it is Elohim, translated God;
in J, Jehovah (Yahveh) Elohim, translated Lord
God. In D the writer continually uses the
phrase " The Lord thy God," this phrase oc-
curring more than 200 times. "I am Jehovah"
is a phrase used by P, including the Holiness
The Pentateuch. 71
Code, 70 times. It is never used by E or D.
" God of the Fathers " is frequently used by E
and D ; never by P.
Bishop Colenso's analysis of Genesis is as
follows : Elohist, 336 verses ; Jehovist, 1,052
verses; Deuteronomist, 39 verses; Priestly writer,
106 verses.
The Pentateuch was chiefly written and com-
piled from seven to ten centuries after the time
claimed. The Elohistic and Jehovistic docu-
ments, the oldest of the four, were written at
least 300 years after the time of David and 700
years after the time of Moses. They were proba-
bly written at about the same time. E belongs
to the Northern Kingdom of Israel, J to the
Southern Kingdom of Judah. The unanimous
verdict of critics is that Deuteronomy was writ-
ten during the reign of Josiah, about 626 b.c,
825 years after Moses died. The Holiness Code
belongs to the age of Ezekiel, about fifty years
later. The Priestly Code was written after the
Exile, in the time of Ezra, 1,000 years after
Moses. Important changes and additions were
made as late as the third century B.C., so that,
excepting the variations and interpolations of
later times, the Pentateuch in something like its
present form appeared about 1,200 years after
the time of Moses.
CDc fiigfter Criticism — Tts triumph and Tt$ Conse-
quences.
The certainty and the consequences of the
72 Authenticity of the Bible.
Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch are thus ex-
pressed by Hupfeld :
" The discovery that the Pentateuch is put to-
gether out of various sources, or original docu-
ments, is beyond all doubt not only one of the
most important and most pregnant with conse-
quences for the interpretation of the historical
books of the Old Testament, or rather for the
whole of theology and history, but it is also one
of the most certain discoveries which have been
made in the domain of criticism and the history
of literature. Whatever the anti-critical party
may bring forward to the contrary, it will main-
tain itself, and not retrograde again through
anything, so long as there exists such a thing as
criticism, and it will not be easy for a reader
upon the stage of culture on which we stand
in the present day, if he goes to the examina-
tion unprejudiced, and with an uncorrupted
power of appreciating the truth, to be able
to ward off its influence."
The critical labors of Hobbes, Spinoza, Pey-
rerius, Simon, Astruc, Eichorn, Paine, Bauer,
(G. L.) De Wette, Ewald, Geddes, Vater, Reuss,
Graf, Davidson, Colenso, Hupfeld, Wellhausen,
Kuenen, Briggs, and others, have overthrown the
old notions concerning the authenticity of the
Pentateuch. There is not one eminent Bible
scholar in Europe, and scarcely one in America,
who any longer contends that Moses wrote this
work.
The pioneers in the field of the Higher Criti-
The Pentateuch. 73
cism were the Rationalists Hobbes and Spinoza
and the Catholics Peyrerius, Simon, and Astruc.
More than two hundred years ago Benedict
Spinoza, the greatest of modern Jews, with his
own race and the entire Christian church against
him, made this declaration, which the scholar-
ship of the whole world now accepts :
"It is as clear as the noonday light that the
Pentateuch was not written by Moses" (Tract-
atus Theologico-Politicus, Chap, viii, Sec. 20).
A century passed, and Thomas Paine in
France, in the most potent volume of Higher
Criticism ever penned, exposed in all their
nakedness the wretched claims of the tradition-
alists. He read the Pentateuch and wrote :
" Those books are spurious." " Moses is not
the author of them." "The style and manner in
which those books are written give no room to
believe, or even to suppose, they were written
by Moses." " They were not written in the time
of Moses, nor till several hundred years after-
wards" (Age of Reason).
About the same time German scholars, ever
foremost in the domain of critical analysis, took
up the work. The writings of Eichorn, Bauer,
Vater, and De Wette, " swept the field in
Germany." De Wette, one of her greatest theo-
logians, thus presents the conclusion of German
critics :
"The opinion that Moses composed these
books is not only opposed by all the signs of a
later date which occur in the work itself, but
74 Authenticity of the Bible.
also by the entire analogy of the history of
Hebrew literature and language" (Books of
Moses, Sec. 163).
Fifty years or more elapsed and Davidson
and Colenso studied and wrote, and British
scholarship was soon arrayed against the old in
favor of the new. Dr. Davidson, in the follow-
ing words, voices the opinion of England's
learned :
"There is little external evidence for the
Mosaic authorship, and what little there is does
not stand the test of criticism. The succeeding
writers of the Old Testament do not confirm it.
. . . The objections derived from internal
structure are conclusive against the Mosaic
authorship" (Introduction to the Old Testament).
At last, in our own land and in our own time,
Dr. Briggs and others attack the Mosaic theo-
ries, and, in spite of the efforts of Princeton's
fossils, the intelligence of America acknowledges
the force of their reasoning and accepts their
conclusions. The Higher Criticism has tri-
umphed. Spinoza's judgment is confirmed, and
the American critic pronounces the verdict of
the intellectual world :
" In the field of scholarship the question is
settled. It only remains for the ministry and
people to accept it and adapt themselves to it "
(Hexateuch, p. 144).
But this is not the end. A victory has been
achieved, but its full results remain to be real-
ized. The clergy, against their will, and the
The Pentateuch. 75
laity, who are subservient to the clergy's will,
are yet to be enlightened and convinced. Even
then, when the facts disclosed by the Higher
Criticism have gained popular acceptance,
another task remains — the task of showing
men the real significance of these facts. The
critics themselves, many of them, do not seem
to realize the consequences of their work. The
Rationalistic critics, like Hobbes, Spinoza,
Paine, Reuss, Wellhausen, Kuenen and others,
have measured the consequences of their criti-
cisms and accepted them. The orthodox critics
have not. Some of them, like Dr. Briggs, while
denying the Mosaic authorship and great antiq-
uity of the Pentateuch, while maintaining its
anonymous and fragmentary character, and con-
ceding its contradictions and errors, are yet
loath to reject its divinity and authority. But
these also must be given up. This work as a
divine revelation and authentic record must go.
Its chief theological doctrine, the Fall of Man}
is a myth. With this doctrine falls the Atone-
ment, and with the Atonement orthodox Chris-
tianity. This is the logical sequence of the
Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. To these
critics, and to all who are intelligent enough to
discern the truth and courageous enough to
meet it, I would repeat and press home the ad-
monition of our critic, "to accept it and adapt
themselves to it."
76 Authenticity of the Bible.
CHAPTER VII.
THE PROPHETS .
Next to the Pentateuch, the most important
books of the Old Testament are .the Prophets.
They are divided into two divisions, Earlier and
Later. The Earlier prophets comprise Joshua,
Judges, First Samuel, Second Samuel, First
Kings, and Second Kings. The Later Prophets
are divided into Greater and Minor. The
Greater Prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
Ezekiel; the Minor Prophets, Hosea, Joel,
Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micali, Nahum, Habak-
kuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Mal-
achi.
Joshua.
The book of Joshua, it is claimed, was written
by Joshua just before his death, which occurred,
according to the accepted chronology, in 1426
B.C. This book for a time formed a part of the
Pentateuch (or Hexateuch). In later times, to
increase its authority, the Pentateuch was
ascribed to Moses. A recognition of the fact
that Moses could not have written a history of
the events that happened after his death caused
that portion now known as Joshua to be de-
tached and credited to Joshua.
The Prophets. 77
Many of the arguments adduced against the
Mosaic authorship of the preceding books ap-
ply with equal force against the claim that
Joshua wrote the book which bears his name.
The book contains no internal evidence of his
authorship; he does not claim to be its author;
the other writers of the Old Testament do not
ascribe its authorship to him; he is spoken of
in the third person; it is clearly the work of
more than one writer; the language in which it
was written was not in existence when he lived;
much of it relates to events that occurred after
his death.
"And it came to pass after these things, that
Joshua, the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord,
died, being a hundred and ten years old. And
they buried him in the border of his inheritance
in Timnath-serah. . . . And Israel served
the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the
days of the elders that overlived Joshua" (Josh.
xxiv, 29-31).
As the Pentateuch gives an account of the
death and burial of Moses, so the book of
Joshua gives an account of the death and burial
of Joshua.
" And Eleazer the son of Aaron died " (xxiv,
33).
The death of Eleazer occurred six years
after the death of Joshua.
" But the Jebusites dwell with the children of
Judah at Jerusalem unto this day " ( xv, 63).
The children of Judah did not dwell in Jeru-
78 Authenticity of the Bible.
salem until nearly 400 years after Joshua. The
phrase "unto this day" is frequently used in
the book, and this shows that it was written
long after the events it describes.
In his account of the miracle of Joshua caus-
ing the sun to stand still, the writer appeals to
the book of Jasher in support of his statement :
"Is not this written in the book of Jasher?"
(x, 13.)
This could not have been written until after
the book of Jasher was written or compiled.
When was Jasher written? We do not know,
but in his history of David the author of Sam-
uel thus refers to it : " He [David] bade them
teach the children of Judah the use of the bow;
behold, it is written in the book of Jasher " (2
Sam. i, 18). This proves that the book of Jasher
was not written before the time of David. If
the book of Joshua was not written until after
the book of Jasher was written, then it could
not have been written until the time of David
or later.
The book of Joshua consists of two parts.
The first, which originally formed a part of, or
sequel to, Deuteronomy, was probably written
before the Captivity; the latter part was writ-
ten after the captivity — 900 years after the time
of Joshua.
Judges.
The authorship of this book has been
ascribed to Samuel. In disproof of this I
quote the following :
The Prophets. 79
" Now the children of Judah had fought
against Jerusalem and taken it " (i, 8).
Jerusalem was taken by Judah 1048 B.C.;
Samuel died 1060 B.C., twelve years before it was
taken.
" In those days there was no king in Israel "
(xviii, 1; xix, 1; xxi, 25).
This passage, which is repeated several times,
was written after Israel had become a kingdom,
and evidently long subsequent to the time of
Saul and Samuel. *
" And they forsook the Lord, and served Baal
and Ashtaroth " (ii, 13).
This was probably written as late as the
reign of Hoshea, 730 B.C.
The chapters relating to Samson indicate a
date as late as Manasseh, 698 to 643 B.C. Dur-
ing the reign of this king the Hebrews became
sun-worshipers. Samson was a sun-god — the
name signifies "sun-god." All the stories re-
lated of him in Judges are solar myths.
" He and his sons were priests to the tribe of
Dan until the day of the captivity of the land"
(xviii, 30).
The above passage denotes a date as late as
the Captivity.
Smith's "Bible Dictionary" says: "It is
probable that the books of Judges, Ruth, Sam-
uel, and Kings oiiginally formed one work"
(art. Ruth). If these books originally formed
one work, Samuel was not the author of any of
them, for Kings, it is admitted, was written as
80 Authenticity of the Bible.
late as the time of Jeremiah, and possibly as
late as the time of Ezra, from 450 to 600 years
after Samuel.
Judges, like the Pentateuch and Joshua, is
the work of several writers. It can scarcely be
called even a compilation. It is a mere collec-
tion of historical and mythological fragments,
thrown together without any regard to logical
arrangement or chronological order.
first and Second Samuel.
It is popularly supposed, and many Christian
teachers affirm, that Samuel wrote the books
which bear his name. And yet the writer says,
" Samuel died," and seven chapters of the
first book follow this announcement. The sec-
ond book in no way pertains to him; his name
is not once mentioned; the events narrated oc-
curred from four to forty-four years after his
death.
Others claim that the books were written by
Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, basing their claim
on a passage in Chronicles, which says that the
acts of David " are written in the book of Sam-
uel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the
prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer " (1
ChroD. xxix, 29).
As Samuel died while David was yet a young
man — four years before he became king — he did
not record the acts of David. Nathan and Gad
are referred to in the books, but in a manner
that forbids the supposition of their author-
The Prophets. 81
ship. These books were not written by Sam-
uel; neither were they written by Samuel,
Nathan, and Gad. Their authorship is un-
known.
Concerning the books of Samuel, Dr. Oort
writes : " There is no book in the Bible which
shows so clearly that its contents are not all de-
rived from the same source. . . . Two con-
flicting traditions relating to the same subject
are constantly placed side by side in perfect
simplicity, and apparently with no idea that the
one contradicts the other " (Bible for Learners,
vol. i, pp. 433, 434).
first ana Second Urns.
In the Catholic version, and in the subtitles
of our versions of the Bible, First and Second
Samuel and First and Second Kings are called
the First, Second, Third, and Fourth books of
Kings. They are properly one book. The di-
vision of the work into four books is not only
artificial, but illogical. Regarding the author-
ship of the last two, Smith's "Bible Dictionary"
says : "As regards the authorship of the books,
but little difficulty presents itself. The Jewish
tradition, which ascribes them to Jeremiah, is
borne out by the strongest internal evidence "
(Kings).
Is this true ? The date assigned for Jeremi-
ah's composition of the books is 600 B.C. And
yet a considerable portion of the work is devoted
to a presentation of the forty years of Jewish
82 Authenticity of the Bible.
history subsequent to this date. It records the
death of Jehoiakim, the first siege and taking of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the elevation of
Zedekiah to the throne, his eleven years' reign,
the second siege and capture of Jerusalem, and
a long list of events that followed. It records
the reign of the Babylonian king, Evil-Mero-
dach. This, according to the popular chronol-
ogy, and according to the " Bible Dictionary,"
was from 561 to 559 B.C. — forty years after the date
assigned, and long after the time of Jeremiah.
These books are a mixture of history and fic-
tion. They profess to be a history of the He-
brew kings; and yet a dozen chapters are
devoted to a fabulous account of the sayings
and doings of two Hebrew prophets, Elijah and
Elisha. First and Second Chronicles, which
give a history of the same kings, refer to Elijah
but once, and make no mention of Elisha.
The confused character of their contents,
especially their chronology, has often been re-
ferred to. They are simply a compilation of
ancient documents, written at various times,
and by various authors.
The Encyclopedia Britannica expresses the
almost unanimous verdict of critics respecting
the authorship of the four principal historical
books of the Old Testament: "We cannot speak
of the author of Kings or Samuel, but only of
an editor or successive editors whose main
work was to arrange in a continuous form
extracts or abstracts from earlier books."
The Prophets. 83
Tsaiab.
Isaiah, the chief of the prophetic books, and,
next to the Pentateuch and the Four Gospels,
the most important book of the Bible, purports
to be a series of prophecies uttered during the
reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.
Uzziah's reign began b. 0. 810, and ended b.o.
758; Hezekiah's reign began B.C. 726 and ended
B. c. 698. Isaiah's ministry is supposed to have
extended from about 760 to 700 B.C., and toward
the close of this period, the book of Isaiah, as it
now appears, is said to have been written.
In support of Isaiah's authorship of the en-
tire work the following arguments have been
advanced :
1. Its various prophecies exhibit a unity of
design.
2. The style is the same throughout the work.
3. Messianic prophecies abound in both its
parts.
4. No other writer claimed its authorship.
5. The ancient Jews all ascribe it to him.
The above arguments for the authenticity of
the work are partly true and partly untrue. So
far as they conflict with the following arguments
against its authenticity as a whole they are
untrue :
1. The work is fragmentary in character
2. The style of its several parts is quite un-
like.
3. Many of its events occurred af wer Isaiah's
death.
84 Authenticity of the Bible.
4. Much of it relates to the Babylonian cap-
tivity.
5. It records both the name and the deeds of
Cyrus.
Isaiah might very properly be divided into
two books, the first comprising the first thirty-
nine chapters; the second, the concluding
twenty-seven chapters. Impartial critics agree
that while Isaiah may have written a portion of
the first part he could not have written all of it
nor any of the second. This is the conclusion
of Cheyne, Davidson, De Wette, Eichorn,
Ewald, Gesenius, and others.
That he wrote neither the first nor the second
part of the book, as it now exists, is proven by
the following passages taken from both :
"Babylon is fallen, is fallen " (xxi, 9).
" Sennacherib king of Assyria came up
against all the defensed cities of Judah, and
took them " (xxxvi, 1).
"So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed,
and went and returned and dwelt in Nineveh.
" And it came to pass, as he was worshiping
in the house of Nishrock his god, that Addram-
melech and Sharezer his sons smote him with
the sword; and they escaped into the land of
Armenia; and Esarhaddon his son reigned in
his stead " (xxxvii, 37, 38).
Sennacherib ascended the throne 702 B.C. and
died 680 B.C. Isaiah lived in the preceding cen-
tury.
" That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and
The Prophets. 85
shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to
Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the tem-
ple, Thy foundation shall be laid " (xliv, SJ8).
"Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to
Cyrus " (xlv, 1). " He shall build my city, and
he shall let go my captives " (xlv, 13).
Cyrus conquered Babylon B. o. 538, and re-
leased the Jews from captivity and permitted
them to return and rebuild Jerusalem and the
temple B.C. 536, nearly two centuries after the
time of Isaiah.
Regarding these passages, Dr. Lyman Abbott,
in a sermon on " The Scientific Conception of
Revelation," says: "If you take up a history
and it refers to Abraham Lincoln, you are per-
fectly sure that it was not written in the time of
George Washington. Now, if you take up the
book of Isaiah and read in it about Cyrus the
Great, you are satisfied that the book was not
written by Isaiah one hundred years before
Cyrus was born."
Prof. T. K. Cheyne of Oxford University, the
leading modern authority on Isaiah, says : "That
portion of the Old Testament which is known as
the book of Isaiah was, in fact, written by at
least three writers — and possibly many more —
who lived at different times and in different
places." Nearly all of the ninth chapter, which,
on account of its supposed Messianic prophe-
cies, is, with Christians, one of the most valued
chapters of the Bible, Professor Cheyne declares
to be an interpolation,
86 Authenticity of the Bible.
That four of the middle chapters, the thirty-
sixth, thirty-seventh, thirty-eighth, and thirty-
ninth, originally formed a separate document is
evident. Concerning these four chapters, Paine
truthfully observes : "This fragment of history
begins and ends abruptly; it has not the least
connection with the chapter that precedes it, nor
with that which follows it, nor with any other
in the book " (Age of Reason, p. 129).
If Isaiah wrote this book, and Jeremiah wrote
the books of Kings, as claimed; then either
Isaiah or Jeremiah was a plagiarist; for the
language of the four chapters just mentioned is,
with a few slight alterations, identical with that
of a portion of the second book of Kings.
The integrity of this book cannot be main-
tained. It is not the product of one writer, but
of many. How many, critics may never be able
to determine; certainly not less than five, proba-
bly more than ten.
jeremiafo.
The prophecies of Jeremiah, it is affirmed, were
delivered at various times between 625 and 585
B.C., and a final redaction of them was made by
him about the latter date. The book, as it now
appears, is in such a disordered condition that
Christian scholars have to separate it into
numerous parts and rearrange them in order to
make a consecutive and intelligible narrative.
Dr. Hitchcock, in his " Analysis of the Bible ''
(p 1,144), says : " So many changes have taken
place, or else so many irregularities were origi-
The Prophets. 87
nally admitted in the arrangement of the book,
that Dr. Blayney, whose exposition we chiefly
follow, was obliged to make fourteen different
portions of the whole before he could throw it
into consecutive order. »'
The following is Dr. Blayney's arrange-
ment of the book : Chapters i-xii; xiii-xx; xxii,
xxiii; xxv, xxvi; xxxv, xxxvi; xlv-xlviii; xlix
(1-33); xxi; xxiv; xxvii-xxxiv; xxxvii-xxxix; xlix
(34-39); 1, li; xl-xliv.
This disordered condition of Jeremiah indi-
cates one of two things: a plurality of authors,
or a negligence, if nothing worse, on the part of
the Bible's custodians that Christians will be
loath to acknowledge.
The book, as a whole, was not written by
Jeremiah. He did not write the following :
"And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth
year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of
Judah, in the twelfth month, in the five and
twentieth day of the month, that Evil-Merodach
king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign,
lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah,
and brought him forth out of prison " (lii, 31).
The release of Jehoiachin by Evil-Merodach
occurred 562 or 561 b.o. Jeremiah had then
been dead twenty years.
This book is not the work of one author. The
thirty-seventh and thirty-eighth chapters were
not written by the same person. Much of the
thirty-eighth is a mere repetition of the thirty-
seventh; and yet the two are so filled with dis-
88 Authenticity of the Bible.
crepancies that it is impossible to accept both
as the writings of the same author.
Jeremiah, it is declared, wrote both Kings and
Jeremiah. He could not have written the con-
cluding portion of either. The last chapter of 2
Kings and the last chapter of Jeremiah are the
same, and were written after the time of Jere-
miah.
ezekiel.
The period assigned for Ezekiel's prophecies
is that beginning B.C. 595 and ending b c. 573.
Christians assert that the first twenty-four chap-
ters of the work were written before the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The whole
work was undoubtedly written after this event.
The Talmud credits its authorship to the
Great Synagogue. If this be correct, Ezekiel
had nothing to do with its composition; for he
was not a member of the Great Synagogue.
Ewald, while claiming for him the utterance of
its several prophecies, believes that the book in
its present form is not his work, but that of a
later author.
Referring to Ezekiel, Dr. Oort says : " In his
case, far more than in Jeremiah's even, we must
be on our guard against accepting the written
account of his prophecies as a simple record of
what he actually said " (Bible for Learners, vol.
ii, p. 407).
Zunz, a German critic, not only contends that
the book is not authentic, but declares that no
such prophet as Ezekiel ever existed.
The Prophets. 89
While it must be admitted that the internal
evidence against the integrity and authenticity of
Ezekiel is weaker than that of the other books
thus far examined, it can be confidently asserted
that Bible apologists have been unable to estab-
lish either. One damaging fact they concede :
no other writer of the Bible ever mentions the
book or its alleged author.
minor Prophets.
The twelve Minor Prophets, Hosea, Joel,
Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbak-
kuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Mala-
chi, require but a passing notice. Compared
with the other Prophets, or even with the prin-
cipal books of the Hagiographa, they are of lit-
tle importance. A part of them may be genuine
— the writings of those to whom their author-
ship has been ascribed — but there is no exter-
nal evidence, either in the Bible or elsewhere, to
support the claim, while the internal evidence of
the books themselves is not convincing.
The date assigned for the composition of
Jonah, the oldest of the Later Prophets, is 856
— according to some, 862 B.C. He is said to
have prophesied during the reign of one Pul,
"king of Assyria." But unfortunately Pul's
reign is placed in 770 B.C., ninety years after the
date assigned for the book. Jonah is named in
the Four Gospels, named by Christ himself.
This is adduced as proof of its authenticity and
in support of a literal instead of an allegorical
90 Authenticity of the Bible.
interpretation of its language. But Christ's lan-
guage, even if his divinity be admitted, proves
neither the authenticity nor the historical char-
acter of the book. He taught in parables, and
certainly would have no hesitancy in using an
allegorical figure as a symbol. No scholar now
contends for its authenticity, and no sane per-
son believes its stories to be historical. Luther
rejected the book.
Four other books, Hosea, Micah, Zechariah,
and Malachi, are quoted or supposed to be
quoted, by the Evangelists, and two, Joel and
Amos, are mentioned in Acts. This proves no
more than that these books were in existence
when the New Testament was written — a fact
which none disputes.
Matthew (ii, 6) cites Micah (v, ii) as a Messi-
anic prophecy. Micah lived during the reign
of Hezekiah and wrote, not of an event 700 years
in the future, but of one near at hand, the ex-
pected invasions of the Assyrians. The passage
quoted by Matthew (ii, 15) from Hosea (xi, 1)
refers to the exodus of the Israelites which
took place 700 years before the time of Hosea.
Zechariah is the work of at least three writers.
Davidson says : " To Zechariah's authentic ora-
cles were attached chapters ix-xiv, themselves
made up of two parts (ix-xi, xii-xiv) belonging
to different times and authors" (Canon, p. 33).
The passage quoted by Matthew (xxi, 5) is not
from the authentic portion of Zechariah, but
from one of the spurious chapters, ix, 9.
The Prophets. 91
Mark (i, 2, 3) quotes a prophecy which he ap-
plies to John the Baptist. The passage quoted
contains two sentences, one of which is found in
Malachi (iii, 1), the other in Isaiah (xl, 3). Whis-
toD declares that both sentences originally be-
longed to Isaiah. If Winston is correct the
Evangelist has not quoted Malachi. This, the
last book of the Old Testament, is an anonymous
work, Malachi being the name of the book and
not of the author.
The period assigned for the prophecies of
Amos is from 808 to 785 B.C. The book contains
the following : " In that day will I raise up the
tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up
the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his
ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old"
(ix,ll).
" And I will bring again the captivity of my
people of Israel, and they shall build the waste
cities and inhabit them" (14).
Amos was not written until after the captiv-
ity. This commenced 588 B.C. and continued
fifty years.
Joel, it is asserted, was written 800 B.C. That
this writer also lived after the captivity is shown
by the following :
"I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and
Jerusalem" (iii, 1).
This passage, it is claimed, was a prediction
made centuries before the event occurred.
Joel's ability to predict future events, however,
is negatived by his next effort : "But Judah
92 Authenticity of the Bible.
shall dwell forever, and Jerusalem from genera-
tion to generation" (20).
"Nineveh is laid waste : who shall bemoan
her?" (Nahum iii, 7).
The composition of Nahum is placed between
720 and 698 B.c Nineveh was destroyed 606
B.C., a century later.
The first verse of Zephaniah declares that the
book was written "in the days of Josiah," in the
seventh centur}r B.C.; the last verse shows that it
was written in the days of Cyrus, in the sixth
century b c. Every chapter of Habakkuk and
Obadiah's single chapter show that these books
were written after the dates assigned.
The book of Haggai is ascribed to Haggai, the
last person in the world to whom it can reason-
ably be ascribed. It is not a book of Haggai,
but about Haggai. Excepting a few brief exhor-
tations, of which it gives an account, it does not
purport to contain a word from his tongue or
pen. This argument applies with still greater
force to Jonah.
The greater portion of the Minor Prophets
are probably forgeries. The names of their
alleged authors are attached to them, but in
most cases in the form of a superscription only.
Each book opens with a brief introduction an-
nouncing the author. These introductions were
not written by the authors themselves, but by
others. The only authority for pronouncing the
books authentic, then, is the assurance of some
unknown Jewish scribe or editor.
The Prophets. 93
A damaging argument against the authority, if
not against the authenticity, of the Prophets is
the fact that while the historical records of the
Old Testament cover the time during which all
of them are said to have flourished, only a few
of them are deemed worthy of mention.
94 Authenticity of the Bible.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE HAGIOGRAPHA.
The Hagiographa comprises the remaining
thirteen books of the Old Testament. It was di-
vided into three divisions: 1. Psalms, Proverbs,
Job. 2. Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther. 3. Daniel, Ezra and Ne-
hemiah, First and Second Chronicles. The
Jews considered these books of less value than
those of the Law and the Prophets. The books
belonging to the third division possess little
merit; but the first two divisions, omitting
Esther, together with a few poems in the Pen-
tateuch and the Prophets, contain the cream of
Hebrew literature.
Psalms.
The collection of hymns and prayers used in
public worship by Jews and Christians, and
called the Psalms, stands first in importance as
a religious book in the Hagiographa. Christians
accept it not only as a book of praise, but as a
prophetic revelation and doctrinal authority.
It is popularly supposed that David wrote all,
or nearly all, of the Psalms. Many commenta-
The Hagiographa. 95
tors attribute to him the authorship of one hun-
dred or more. He wrote, at the most, but a few
of them.
The Jews divided them into five books : 1.
Chapters i-xli; 2. xlii-lxii; 3. lxiii-lxxxix; 4. xc
-cvi; 5. cvii-cl. Smith's " Bible Dictionary," a
standard orthodox authority, claims for David
the authorship of the first book only. The sec-
ond book, while including a few of his psalms,
was not compiled, it says, until the time of
Hezekiah, three hundred years after his reign.
The psalms of the third book, it states, were
composed during Hezekiah's reign; those of the
fourth book following these, and prior to the
Captivity; and those of the fifth book after the
return from Babylon, four hundred years after
David's time.
There are psalms in the third, fourth, and
fifth books ascribed to David, but they are
clearly of much later origin. The " Bible Dic-
tionary " admits that they were not composed
by him, and attempts to account for the Davidic
superscription by assuming that they were writ-
ten by Hezekiah, Josiah, and others who were
lineal descendants and belonged to the house of
David. But there is nothing to warrant the
assumption that they were written by these
Jewish kings. They were anonymous pieces to
which the name of David was affixed to add to
their authority.
The second book concludes with these words:
M The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are
96 Authenticity of the Bible.
ended." This is accepted to mean that none of
the psalms following this book belong to David.
The Korahite psalms, assigned to David's reign,
belong to a later age. Twelve psalms are
ascribed to Asaph, who lived in David's reign.
This passage from one of them was written at
least 430 years after David's death :
"O God, the heathen are come into thine in-
heritance; thy holy temple have they defiled:
they have laid Jerusalem on heaps " (lxxix, 1).
In the second and third books the word God
occurs 206 times, while Jehovah, translated
"Lord God," occurs but 44 times; in the re-
maining three books, God occurs but 23 times,
while Jehovah occurs 640 times.
Psalms xlii and xliii are merely parts of the
same psalm. Psalm xix consists of two distinct
psalms, the first eleven verses constituting one,
the last three another. Psalms xiv and liii are
the same; lx and cviii, omitting the first four or
five verses, are also the same. The Septuagint
version and the Alexandrian manuscript contain
151 psalms, the last one being omitted from
other versions.
Some of the more conservative German critics
credit David with as many as thirty psalms.
Dr. Lyman Abbott contends that he did not
write more than fifteen. The Dutch scholars,
Kuenen and Oort, believe that he wrote none.
And this is probably the truth. While collec-
tions of these psalms doubtless existed at an
earlier period, the book, in its present form,
The Hagiographa. 97
was compiled during the Maccabean age, about
one hundred and fifty years before the Chris-
tian era.
Many of these psalms are fine poetical com-
positions; but the greater portion of them are
crude in construction, and some of them fiendish
in sentiment.
Proverbs.
The authorship of Proverbs has been
ascribed to Solomon. He could have written
but few of these proverbs, and probably wrote
none. It is a compilation of maxims made
many centuries after his time. Tradition rep-
resented Solomon as the wisest of men, and
every wise saying whose origin was unknown
was credited to him.
Dr. Oort says : "The history of Solomon's
wisdom resembles that of David's music. In
either case the imagination of posterity has
given a thoroughly religious character to what
was in reality purely secular; and just as David
was made the author of a number of psalms, so
various works of the so-called sages, or proverb-
makers, were ascribed to Solomon " (Bible for
Learners, vol. ii, p. 75).
The book consists of seven different collec-
tions of proverbs, as follows : 1. i, 7-ix; 2. x-
xxii, 16; 3. xxii, 17-xxiv; 4. xxv-xxix; 5. xxx;
6. xxxi, 1-9 ; 7. xxxi, 10-31. The first six
verses are a preface.
The first collection, it is admitted, was not the
work of Solomon. These proverbs were com-
98 Authenticity of the Bible.
posed as late as 600 B.o. The second collection
is presented as " The Proverbs of Solomon." If
any of Solomon's proverbs exist they are con-
tained in this collection. The third collection
is anonymous. The fourth begins as follows :
"These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the
men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out"
(700 B.C.). The fifth contains " The words of
Agur the son of Jakeh." The sixth, comprising
the first nine verses of the last chapter, are
"The words of King Lemuel." The seventh,
comprising the remainder of the chapter, is a
poem, written after the Captivity.
30D.
It is remarkable that the book which, from a
literary point of view, occupies the first place
among the books of the Bible, should be the
only one in the collection that was not written
by a believer in the religion of the Bible. It is
almost universally conceded that the book of
Job was not written by a Jew, but by a Gentile.
Most Christians ascribe its authorship to Job
himself; but there is no more authority for
ascribing it to Job than there is for ascribing
the Pentateuch to Moses. Job is the name of
the leading character of the book, not the name
of its author. Its authorship is unknown. The
Talmud asserts, and probably correctly, that
Job was not a real personage — that the book is
an allegory. Luther says, " It is merely the
argument of a fable."
Begarding its antiquity, Dr. Hitchcock says :
The Hagiogrspha. 99
" The first written of all the books in the Bible,
and the oldest literary production in the world,
is the book of Job." The date assigned for its
composition is 1520 B.C.
Had Job been written a thousand years be-
fore the time claimed, it would not be the oldest
literary production in the world. But it was
probably written a thousand years after the
time claimed. Luther places its composition
500 years after this time; Renan says that it
was written 800 years later, Ewald and David-
son 900 years later. Grotius and DeWette be-
lieve that it was written 1000 years after the
date assigned, while Hartmann and others con-
tend that it was written still later. While its
exact date cannot be determined, there is inter-
nal evidence pointing to a much later age than
that named.
" Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Plei-
ades, and the chambers of the south " (ix, 9).
The use of these Greek astronomical names
proves a later origin. So, too, does the follow-
ing passage :
" The Chaldeans made out three bands " (i,
17).
Of this people Chambers' Encyclopedia says :
" The Chaldeans are first heard of in the ninth
century before Christ as a small Accadian tribe
on the Persian Gulf." This was seven centuries
after the date assigned for Job, while the same
authority states that Chaldea did not exist un-
til a still later period;
ioo Authenticity of the Bible.
The poem of Job, as originally composed,
comprised the following : Chapters i-xxvii, 10;
xxviii-xxxi; xxviii-xli, 12; xlii, 1-6. All the
rest of the book, about eight chapters — nearly
one fifth of it — consists of clumsy forgeries.
The poet is a radical thinker who boldly ques-
tions the wisdom and justice of God. To coun-
teract the influence of his work these interpola-
tions which controvert its teachings were in-
serted.
Nor is this all. Our translators have still
further mutilated the work. Its most damaging
lines they have mistranslated or glossed over.
Thus Job (xiii, 15) says : " He [God] will slay
me; I have no hope. " Yet they make him say
the very reverse of this : " Though he slay me,
yet will I trust in him."
cdc jm Roils.
The second division of the Hagiographa,
known as the Five Rolls, or Megilloth, contains
five small books — The Song of Solomon, Ecclesi-
astes, Lamentations, Ruth, and Esther.
The Song of Solomon, Song of Songs, or Can-
ticles, as it is variously called, and Ecclesiastes,
or The Preacher, are said to be the works of
Solomon — the former a product of his youth,
the latter of his old age. It is quite certain that
the same author did not write both, and equally
certain that Solomon wrote neither.
The Song of Solomon, Ewald affirms, is an
anonymous poem, written about the middle of
The Hagiographa. 101
the tenth century B.C. — after Solomon's time.
It is doubtless of much later origin. It belongs
to Northern, and not to Southern Palestine.
This alone proves that Solomon did not write
it. The Talmud says, " Hezekiah and his com-
pany wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and
Song of Songs." Hengstenberg, one of the most
orthodox of commentators, says that Ecclesi-
astes was written centuries after the time of
Solomon. Davidson believes that it was written
as late as 350 B.C.; while Hartmann and Hitzig,
German critics, contend that it was written still
later.
Solomon's Song is an amorous poem, beauti-
ful in its way. But when we turn to it in the
Christian Bible and find the running titles of
every page and the table of contents of every
chapter filled with sanctimonious drivel about
Christ and his bride, the Church, we are re-
minded of a lecherous parson masquerading
under the cloak of piety among his female par-
ishioners. The Preacher of Ecclesiastes is some-
thing of a Freethought preacher. He is a skep-
tic and a philosopher.
Lamentations, it is claimed, was composed by
Jeremiah. There is little evidence either for or
against this claim. Oort affirms that its ascrip-
tion to Jeremiah is a " mistaken tradition," that
its five poems were written by five different
authors and at different times. The habit
of ascribing anonymous writings to eminent
men was prevalent among the Jews. Moses,
102 Authenticity of the Bible.
Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Daniel, and
probably Jeremiah, have been declared the
authors of books of which they never heard.
Ruth is the only book of the Bible whose au-
thorship is generally conceded by Christians to
be unknown* Dr. Hitchcock says: " There is
nothing whatever by which the authorship of it
can be determined."
Many orthodox scholars admit that Esther's
authorship, like that of Ruth, is unknown.
Some credit it to Mordecai. It was written as
late as 300 B.C., 150 years after Mordecai's time.
The Vulgate and modern Catholic versions in-
clude six chapters not found in our authorized
version. There are many books in the Bible
devoid of truth, but probably none so self-evi-
dently false as Esther. It has been described
as "a tissue of glaring impossibilities from
beginning to end." Luther pronounces it a
"heathenish extravagance."
Daniel.
Christians class Daniel with the Greater
Prophets, and assign its authorship to the sixth
century B.C. It belongs to the Hagiographa
and was one of the last books of the Old Testa-
ment to be written.
A considerable portion of the book relates to
Belshazzar. Twenty times in one chapter is he
referred to as the king of Babylon, and five
times is he called the son of Nebuchadnezzar.
Yet Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchad-
«.
The Hagiographa. 103
nezzar, neither was lie king of Babylon. Again
the author devote3 several chapters to Darius
" the Median," who, he says, defeated the Chal-
deans and conquered Babylon. Now, nearly
everybody, excepting this writer, supposed that
it was Cyrus the Persian who conquered Baby-
lon. Darius " the Median " was never king of
Babylon. This book was written by one igno-
rant of Babylonian history, and not by Daniel,
who lived in Babylon, and who is said to have
been next to the king in authority.
Prof. A. H. Sayce, Professor of Assyriology in
Oxford University, considered by many the
greatest of archaeologists, a believer in the di-
vinity of the Bible and an opponent of Higher
Criticism, is compelled to reject Daniel. In a
recent article, he says: " The old view of the old
Book is correct excepting the book of Daniel,
which is composed of legends. . . . The
historical facts as we know them from the con-
temporaneous records are irreconcilable with
the statements found in the historical portions
of Daniel."
This statement, aside from its rejection of
Daniel, is significant. Here is a man whose life-
long study and researches make him preemi-
nently qualified to judge of one book's authen-
ticity and credibility. This book he rejects.
The books he accepts are those concerning
which he is not specially qualified to judge.
Dr. Arnold says: " I have long thought that
the greater part of the book of Daniel is most
104 Authenticity of the Bible.
certainly a very late work, of the time of the
Maccabees " (Life ami Correspondence, Vol. II.,
p. 188). This conclusion of Dr. Arnold's, made
seventy years ago, is confirmed by the later
critics who place its composition in the reign of
Antiochus Epiphanes, about 165 B.o.
A part, if not all of the book, was written in
Aramaic. In the Greek version the three small
Apocryphal books, History of Susannah, Song
of the Three Holy Children, and Bel and the
Dragon, are included in it. The fact that the
Jews placed Daniel in the Hagiographa, instead
of the Prophets, is fatal to the claims regarding
its authorship and date.
Ezra and Hebemiab.
Ezra and Nehemiah for a time constituted one
book, Ezra. This was afterwards divided into
two books and called The First and Second
books of Ezra. Both were ascribed to Ezra.
Subsequently the names were changed to those
by which they are now known, and the author-
ship assigned respectively to Ezra and Nehe-
miah. That both were not composed by the
same author is shown by the fact that each con-
tains a copy of the register of the Jews that
returned from Babylon.
Critics agree that Ezra did not write all of the
book which now bears his name — that it is the
work of various authors and was written, for
the most part, long after Ezra's time. A por-
tion of it was written in Hebrew and the re-
mainder in Aramaic.
The Hagiographa. 105
Nehemiah wrote, at the most, but a part of
tne book ascribed to him. He did not write the
following:
" The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada,
and Johanan, and Jaddua, were recorded chief
of the fathers; also the priests to the reign of
Darius the Persian" (xii, 22).
Darius the Persian began to reign 336 B.C.;
Nehemiah wrote 433 B.C.
" There were in the days of . . . Nehe-
miah the governor " (xii, 26). " In the days of
Nehemiah" (47).
These passages show that the book, as a
whole, was not only not Written by Nehemiah,
but not until long after the time of Nehemiah.
Spinoza says that both Ezra and Nehemiah
were written two or three hundred years after
the time claimed. The later critics are gener-
ally agreed that neither Ezra nor Nehemiah had
anything to do with the composition of these
books.
first and Second Chronicles.
The concluding books of the Hagiographa,
and of the Old Testament, if arranged in their
proper order, are First and Second Chronicles.
Theologians tell us that they were written or
compiled by Ezra 456 B.C.
By carefully comparing the genealogy given
in the third chapter of 1 Chronicles with that
given in the first chapter of Matthew, it will be
seen that the records of Chronicles are brought
down to within a few generations of Jesus.
106 Authenticity of the Bible.
These books are a compilation of documents
made centuries after the time that Ezra and
Nehemiah are supposed to have completed the
canon of the Old Testament, and a hundred
years after the date assigned for the Septuagint
translation.
The fragmentary character of many of the
books of the Bible, and particularly of Chroni-
cles, is shown in the conclusion of the second
book. It closes with an unfinished sentence,
as follows: " The Lord his God is with him and
let him go up — ." The concluding words may be
found in another book of the Bible — Ezra
(i, 3): " To Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and
build the house of the Lord God of Israel," etc.
The first verses of Ezra are identical with the
last verses of Chronicles. The compiler of
Chronicles had seemingly begun to copy the
document which now forms a part of the book
of Ezra, and in the middle of a sentence was
suddenly called away from his work, never to
resume and complete it.
We have now reviewed the books of the Old
Testament. We have seen that the claims made
in support of their authenticity are, for the
most part, either untrue or incapable of proof.
When and by whom Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
First and Second Samuel, First and Second
Kings, First and Second Chronicles, Ezra, Ne-
hemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesi-
astes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel,
The Hagiographa. 107
Jonah, Haggai, and Malachi were written is
unknown. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and Zech-
ariah wrote, at the most, but portions of the
books ascribed to them. The few remaining
books may have been written by those whose
names they bear, though even these are veiled
in doubt. There is not one book in the Old
Testament whose authenticity, like that of
many ancient Greek and Roman books, is fully
established.
io8 Authenticity of the Bible.
CHAPTER IX.
THE FOUR GOSPELS.
The lesser in size but the greater in import-
ance of the two divisions of the Bible is the New
Testament. The principal books of the New
Testament, and the most highly valued by Chris-
tians of all the books of the Bible, are the Four
Gospels. These books, it is affirmed, were writ-
ten by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in the
first century; Matthew between 37 and 50, Mark
and Luke between 56 and 63, and John between
78 and 97 a.d.
The orthodox claims regarding the origin of
these books are thus expressed by Dr. Hitch-
cock:
" The Four Gospels are the best authenticated
ancient writings in the world ; so clear, weighty,
and extensive is the mass of testimony in favor
of them " (Analysis of the Bible, p. 1149).
" These four books, together constituting the
best attested piece of history in the world, were
written by four eye-witnesses of the facts nar-
rated " (Ibid, p. 1151).
" Matthew and John were Apostles and Mark
and Luke were companions and disciples of
Apostles" (Ibid).
The Four Gospels. 109
If these books are authentic and divinely in-
spired, as claimed, Christianity is built upon a
rock, and the floods and winds of adverse crit-
icism will beat against it in vain ; but if they
are not authentic — if they were not written by
the Evangelists named — if they are merely
anonymous books, written one hundred and fifty
years after the events they purport to record, as
many contend, then it is built upon the sand and
must fall.
Cbe flposties.
Christians claim to have an " unbroken chain
of testimony" to the genuineness and credibility
of the Four Gospels from the alleged dates of
their composition dov.rr. to the present time. I
shall endeavor to show that they have no such
chain of testimony — tha^ the most important
part of it is wanting.
Twenty books — all of the remaining books of
the New Testament but three — are ascribed to
the Apostles Paul, Peter, and John. All of
these books, it is affirmed, were written after
Matthew was written, and about one-half of
them after Mark and Luke were written. If
this be true, some proofs of the existence of
the Synoptic Gospels ought to be found in these
books.
Of the fourteen Epistles credited to Paul all
have been assigned later dates than Matthew,
and a portion of them later dates than Mark and
Luke. But there is not a word to indicate that
no Authenticity of the Bible.
any one of these Gospels was in existence when
Paul wrote.
The two Epistles of Peter, it is claimed, were
written after Matthew, Mark, and Luke were
written. But these Epistles contain no mention
of them.
The four remaining books, First, Second, and
Third John and Revelation, are said to have
been written after these Gospels were com-
posed. Their reputed author, however, knows
nothing of these gospels.
The three great Apostles are silent — three
links at the very beginning of this chain are
missing.
Cbe Apostolic Tatters.
After the Apostles, and contemporary with
the oldest of them, come the Apostolic Fathers,
Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
Clement wrote about the close of the first cent
ury. There are two Epistles credited to him,
but in these Epistles are to be found no
evidences of the existence of the Four Gos-
pels.
Ignatius is said to have suffered martyrdom
in the year 116. There are fifteen Epistles
which bear his name. A few of these are be-
lieved to be genuine, while the remainder are
conceded to be forgeries. But in none of them,
neither in the genuine nor in the spurious, is
there any evidence that the Gospels had ap-
peared when they were written.
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who is said to
The Four Gospels. 1 1 1
have been the companion of John, died at a very
advanced age, about the year 167. His Epistle
to the Philippians is extant, but it contains no
reference to the Gospels.
Hermas and Barnabas are usually classed with
the Apostolic Fathers. The Shepherd of Her-
mas and the Epistle of Barnabas make no men-
tion of the Evangelists.
That the writings of the Apostolic Fathers
contain no proofs of the existence of the Four
Gospels is admitted even by Christian writers.
Dr. Westcott admits it :
" Reference in the sub-apostolic age to the
di courses or actions of our Lord, as we find
them recorded in the Gospels, show, as far as
they go, that what the Gospels relate was then
held to be true ; but it does not necessarily fol-
low that they were already in use, and were the
actual source of the passages in question. On
the contrary, the mode in which Clement refers
to our Lord's teaching — 'the Lord said,' not
• saith ' — seems to imply that he was indebted to
tradition, and not to any written accounts, for
words most closely resembling those which are
still found in our Gospels. The main testimony
of the Apostolic Fathers is, therefore, to the
substance, and not to the authenticity of the
Gospels " (On the Canon of the New Testament,
p. 52).
Bishop Marsh makes the following admission;
" From the Epistle of Barnabas, no inference
can be deduced that he had read any part of
ii2 Authenticity of the Bible.
the New Testament. From the genuine Epistle,
as it is called, of Clement of Rome, it may be
inferred that Clement had read the First Epistle
to the Corinthians. From the Shepherd of Her-
mas no inference whatsoever can be drawn. From
the Epistles of Ignatius it may be concluded
that he had read St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephe-
sians, and that there existed in his time evangel-
ical writings, though it cannot be shown that he
has quoted them. From Polycarp's Epistle to
the Philippians it appears that he had heard of
St. Paul's Epistle to that community, and he
quotes a passage which is in the First Epistle to
the Corinthians and another which is in the Epis-
tle to the Ephesians; but no positive conclusion
can be drawn with respect to any other epistle,
or any of the Four Gospels" (Michaelis, Vol. I.,
p. 354).
Dr. Dodwell says : " We have at this day cer-
tain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the
times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas,
Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order
wherein I Lave named them, and after all the
writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas
you will not find one passage or any mention of
the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any
one of the Evangelists named " (Dissertations
upon Irenaeus).
Professor Norton says : " When we endeavor
to strengthen this evidence by appealing to the
writings ascribed to Apostolic Fathers we, in
fact, weaken its force. At the very extremity of
The Four Gospels. 113
the chain of evidence, where it ought to be
strongest, we are attaching defective links which
will bear no weight " (Genuineness of the Gos-
pels, Vol L, p. 357).
Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, all refer to the
Epistles of Paul, showing that they were in ex-
istence when they wrote and that they were ac-
quainted with them. But they never mention
the Four Gospels, and this silence affords con-
clusive evidence that these books as authorita-
tive documents did not exist in their time ; for
it is unreasonable to suppose that they would
use the least important and make no use of the
most important books of the New Testament.
Three additional and three of the principal links
in this " unbroken chain of testimony" are
wanting, and must be supplied before the
authenticity of the Four Gospels can be estab-
lished.
Cbc Christian fathers.
The early Christian Fathers had no knowl-
edge of the existence of the Four Gospels. One
of the earliest and one of the most eminent of
the Christian Fathers was Justin Martyr. He
lived and wrote about the middle of the second
century. His writings are rather voluminous,
and are devoted to the task of proving to both
Jews and Gentiles the divinity of Christ and the
divine origin of Christianity. If a Christian
writer were to attempt to demonstrate this now,
where would he go for his authority ? To the
Four Gospels. These would constitute his
ii4 Authenticity of the Bible.
chief — almost his entire authority. Now, had
these books been extant when Justin wrote, and
valued as they are by Christians to-day, he
would have used them, he would have quoted
from them, he would have named them. But he
makes no use of them, he never mentions them.
He makes more than three hundred quotations
from the Old Testament — Messianic prophecies,
etc. — and in nearly two hundred instances he
names the books from which he quotes. He
makes nearly one hundred quotations from
Christian writings that are now considered
apocryphal, but he makes none from the Four
Gospels.
This silence of Justin is the most damaging
argument that has been adduced against the
authenticity of the Gospels. This demonstrates
one of two things : that these books were not in
existence when Justin Martyr wrote, were not in
existence at the middle of the second century,
or if they were, the foremost Christian scholar
of his age rejected them.
Recognizing the significance of this damaging
fact, Christian apologists have attempted to show
that Justin was acquainted with our Gospels by
citing extracts from his writings similar to pas-
sages found in them. Westcott adduces seven
passages, but admits that two only are wholly
identical. He says :
" Of the seven, five agree verbally with the
text of St. Matthew or St. Luke, exhibiting, in-
deed, three slight various readings not elsewhere
The Four Gospels. 115
found, but such as are easily explicable. The
sixth is a condensed summary of words related
by St. Matthew; the seventh alone presents an
important variation in the text of a verse,
which is, however, otherwise very uncertain"
(Canon of the New Testament, p. 131).
Think of this renowned defender of Christian-
ity, Justin Martyr, attempting to establish the
divinity of Christ by citing four hundred texts
from the Old Testament and apocryphal books
and two only from the EvaDgelists !
There is really but one passage in the Gos-
pels to be found in Justin. But if it could be
shown that they contain many passages similar
to, or even identical with, passages found in his
writings, this would not prove that he has
quoted from them. It is not claimed that thefce
Gospels are mere fabrications of their authors,
or that they are composed entirely of original
matter. They consist largely of traditions, and
these traditions, many of the,m, were embodied
in other and older books which were used
by the early Fathers. While the Four Gospels
were not extant in Justin's time, some of the
documents of which they are composed, par-
ticularly those containing the reputed sayings
of Jesus, had already appeared and were fre-
quently cited by the Fathers. These citations,
Paley, Lardner, Westcott, and others, in their
evidences of Christianity, have adduced as
proofs of the early origin of the Four Gospels.
Justin's quotations are chiefly from what he
1 1 6 Authenticity of the Bible.
calls the "Memoirs of the Apostles." These, it
is claimed, were the Four Gospels." If so, theu
the gospels we have are not genuine, for the
quotations from the " Memoirs " are not to be
found in our Gospels. Justin says that Mary
(not Joseph) was descended from David; that
Jesus was born in a cave; that the Magi came
from Arabia; that Jesus made ploughs and
yokes; that a fire was kindled in the Jordan at his
baptism; that he was called a magician. The
" Memoirs," or Gospels, from which Justin
quotes are not our Gospels.
The Rev. Dr. Giles repudiates the claim that
Justin Martyr recognized the Gospels. He says:
"The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by
him — do not occur once in all his works. It is
therefore, childish to say that he has quoted
from our existing Gospels " (Christian Records,
P- 71).
Papias, a Christian bishop and a contemporary
of Justin Martyr, is cited as a witness for the
Gospels. He is quoted by Eusebius as refer-
ring to writings of Matthew and Mark. But the
books he mentions are plainly not the gospels of
Matthew and Mark.
Of Matthew he says: "Matthew composed the
oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and every one in-
terpreted them as he was able" (Eusebius' Ec-
clesiastical History, book iii, p. 39).
This was not the biographical narrative
known as " Matthew," but probably an apoc-
The Four Gospels. 117
ryphal book called the " Oracles of Christ,"
which some ascribed to Matthew.
Mark is referred to as follows: "Mark having
become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accu-
rately whatever he remembered, though he did
not arrange in order the things which were
either said or done by Christ. For he neither
heard the Lord, nor followed him; but after-
wards, as I said, accompanied Peter, who
adapted his teaching to the occasion, and not as
making a consecutive record of the Lord's dis-
courses" (Ecclesiastical History, book iii, p. 39).
This does not describe our Gospel of Mark,
which, although a compilation, is a consecutive
narrative of events, and not a collection of
isolated fragments.
But even if Papias was acquainted with the
Gospels, he is a poor witness to their credibil-
ity, for he accepted the teachings of tradition in
preference to the books which he knew : " I
held that what was to be derived from books
did not profit me as that from the living and
abiding voice [tradition] " (Ecclesiastical His-
tory, iii, 39).
Dr. Davidson admits that the books men-
tioned by Papias were not our Gospels. He
says :
" Papias speaks of Matthew and Mark, but it
is most probable that he had documents which
either formed the basis of our present Matthew
and Mark or were taken into them and written
over " (Canon of the Bible, p. 124).
n8 Authenticity of the Bible.
" He neither felt the want nor knew the exist-
ence of inspired Gospels " (Ibid, p. 123).
The writings of thirty Christian authors who
wrote prior to 170 are still extant. In all these
writings there is to be found no mention of the
Four Gospels.
In the writings of Theophilus, bishop of An-
tioch, occurs the following: "John says: 'In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
God.' " This was written in 180, after the mid-
dle of the latter half of the second century, and
is the earliest proof of the existence of any one
of the Four Gospels.
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who wrote about
190, is the earliest writer who mentions all of
the Four Gospels. He names them; he de-
clares them to be inspired; he makes four hun-
dred quotations from them. The Four Gospels
were in existence when Irenaeus wrote, and they
were undoubtedly composed between the time
of Justin Martyr and the time of Irenaeus — that
is, some time during the latter half of the sec-
ond century.
Writers on the evidences of Christianity en-
deavor to establish the genuineness of the Four
Gospels by showing that the Fathers who lived
and wrote during the two centuries following
the ministry and death of Jesus accepted and
quoted them as authorities. They credit these
Fathers with more than four thousand evangel-
ical quotations. But where are these quotations
to be found ? Nearly all of them in Irenaeus,
The Four Gospels. T19
Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen,
while in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp,
and Justin Martyr few or none are claimed.
The fact that the writings of the Fathers which
appeared immediately after 180 contain thou-
sands of evangelical references, while in all the
Writings which appeared before 170 the evangel-
ists are not even named, affords conclusive evi-
dence that the Four Gospels were composed
during or near the decade that elapsed between
170 and 180 a.d.
Internal Evidence.
The Four Gospels do not claim to have been
composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
The titles are not " The Gospel of Matthew,"
"The Gospel of Mark," "The Gospel of Luke,"
and "The Gospel of John," but "The Gospel
According to Matthew," "The Gospel Accord-
ing to Mark," "The Gospel According to Luke,"
and "The Gospel According to John." The
titles simply imply that they are according to
the real or traditional teachings of these Evan-
gelists- So far as the textual authorship is con-
cerned, they are, and do not purport to be other
than, anonymous books. Omit these titles, and
not one word remains to indicate their author-
ship. Now, it is admitted that these books did
not originally bear these titles. St. Chrysostom,
who believes that they are genuine, says
(Homilies i) that the authors did not place their
names at the head of their Gospels, but that
120 Authenticity of the Bible.
this was afterward done by the church. There
is nothing in them to support the claim that
they were written by those whose names have
been prefixed. On the contrary, their contents
furnish conclusive proofs that they were not
written by these supposed authors, nor in the
apostolic age.
mattbtw.
Christians believe that Matthew's Gospel was
written in Hebrew. Our Matthew was written
in Greek. An attempt has been made to explain
the discrepancy by assuming that Matthew
wrote his book in Hebrew, and subsequently re-
wrote it in Greek, or translated it into this
language. But another difficulty remains. The
quotations from the Old Testament in Matthew,
and there are many, are taken, not from the
Hebrew, but from the Septuagint (Greek) ver-
sion. This proves that it was originally written
in Greek and not in Hebrew.
The Gospel According to the Hebrews, it is
affirmed, was the Hebrew form of Matthew. If
this be true, then our Greek Matthew cannot be
a correct translation, for the passages from the
Gospel of the Hebrews which have been pre-
served are not to be found in Matthew. The
following quotations are from the Gospel of the
Hebrews, this supposed original Gospel of
Matthew:
"He who wonders shall reign, and he who
reigns shall rest."
The Four Gospels. 121
" Then the rich man began to smite his head,
and it pleased him not."
11 The Holy Ghost, my mother, lately took me
by one of my hairs, and bore me to the great
mountain Tabor."
"I am a mason, who get my livelihood by my
han^s; I beseech thee, Jesus, that thou wouldst
restore to me my strength, that I may no longer
thus scandalously beg my bread."
If these passages are from the original Gospel
of Matthew, then the accepted Gospel of Mat-
thew is spurious.
This Hebrew Gospel was the Gospel of the
Ebionites and Nazarenes. Eusebius says: " They
[the Ebionites] made use only of that which is
called the Gospel According to the Hebrews."
Epiphanius says: "They [the Nazarenes] have
the Gospel of Matthew most entire in the He-
brew language." St. Jerome refers to it as " the
Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use."
Referring to these sects, Dr. Hug, the emi-
nent Catholic critic, says: " The Ebionites de-
nied the miraculous conception of Christ, and,
with the Nazarenes, looked upon him only as an
ordinary man." The Gospel which these sects
accepted as their authority could not have been
our Gospel of Matthew, because the most im-
portant part of this Gospel is the story of the
miraculous conception.
While the claim that Matthew wrote his Gos-
pel in Hebrew is vigorously mainiained, the
claim that he afterwards translated it into
122 Authenticity of the Bible.
Greek himself is so manifestly untenable that
many have conceded its improbability. Jerome
says: " Who afterwards translated it [Matthew]
into Greek is not sufficiently certain."
The consequences of this admission are thus
reluctantly expressed by Michaelis: " If the
original text of Matthew is lost, and we have
nothing but a Greek translation: then, frankly,
we cannot ascribe any divine inspiration to the
words."
Two texts may be cited from Matthew which
prove a later date for the Gospel than that
claimed. Jesus, in upbraiding the Jews, is re-
ported to have used the following language:
"Upon you may come all the righteous blood
shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous
Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Bara-
chias, whom ye slew between the temple and the
altar " (xxiii, 35).
Zacharias, the son of Baruch (Barouchos),
who is undoubtedly meant, was slain in the
temple about 69 a d. Thus Matthew makes
Jesus refer to an event that occurred forty years
after his death and twenty or thirty years after
the Gospel of Matthew is said to have been
written.
Dr. Hug admits that this is the Zacharias re-
ferred to. He says: "There cannot be a doubt,
if we attend to the name, the fact and its cir-
cumstances, and the object of Jesus in citing it,
that it was the same Zacharias Barouchos, who,
according to Josephus, a short time before the
The Four Gospels. 123
destruction of Jerusalem, was unjustly slain in
the temple."
Regarding this passage in Matthew, Professor
Newman, of University College, London, says:
" There is no other man known in history to
whom this verse can allude. If so, it shows how
late, how ignorant, how rash, is the composer of
a text passed off on us as sacred truth " (Relig-
ion Not History, p. 46).
" Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it. And I will give unto thee
the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatso-
ever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven " (xvi, 18, 19).
This passage was written at the beginning of
the establishment of the Roman Catholic hier-
archy, for the purpose of securing the recogni-
tion of the Church of Rome (the founding of
which tradition assigned to Peter) as the church
of Christ.
Bishop Marsh, in his Michaelis, says: " If the
arguments in favor of a late date for the compo-
sition of St. Matthew's Gospel be compared
with those in favor of an early date, it will be
found that the former greatly outweigh the
latter."
Dr. Davidson admits that Matthew is an
anonymous work. He says: "The author, in-
deed, must ever remain unknown " (Introduc-
tion to the New Testament, p. 72).
124 Authenticity of the Bible.
mark.
As to where the Gospel of Mark was written,
whether in Asia, in Africa, or in Europe, is un-
known. Some believe that it was written at
Antioch; Chrysostom states that it was written
at Alexandria; Irenseus says that it was writ-
ten at Rome. If it was written at Rome it was
probably written in Latin instead of Greek.
Smith's " Bible Dictionary " concedes that " it
abounds in Latin words." The following is an
example:
" And he asked him, What is thy name? And
he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we
are many" (v. 9).
Commenting on this passage, the Rev. Dr.
Giles says: " The Four Gospels are written in
Greek, and the word 'legion' is Latin; but in
Galilee and Perea the people spoke neither
Latin nor Greek, but Hebrew, or a dialect of it.
The word ' legion ' would be perfectly unintelli-
gible to the disciples of Christ, and to almost
everybody in the country " (Christian Records,
p. 197).
If it was written in Latin, then our Gieek
Mark, like Matthew, instead of being an original
Gospel, is simply an unauthenticated translation.
Mark has generally been considered a Petrine
Gospel; orthodox Christians claiming that Peter
dictated the Gospel to Mark. Discussing this
claim, the author of " Supernatural Religion "
says: "Throughout the Gospel there is the total
absence of anything which is specially cbarac-
The Four Gospels. 125
teristic of Petrine influence and teaching " (Vol.
I., p. 362). Volkmar and others declare it to be
Pauline. One thing can be affirmed with cer-
tainty; it was not written by John Mark, neither
was it dictated by Peter.
The last twelve verses of Mark, it is claimed,
are an interpolation, because they are not to be
found in the older manuscripts of the book.
The Kevision Committee which prepared the
New Version of the New Testament pronounced
them spurious. If these verses are not genuine,
then it must be admitted that the second Gospel
is either an unfinished or a mutilated work; for
with these verses omitted, it ends abruptly with
the visit of the women to the tomb, leaving
the most important events at the close of
Christ's career, his appearance and ascen-
sion— the proofs of his resurrection — unre-
corded.
The greater portion of Mark is to be found in
Matthew and Luke, and much of it in the same
or similar language. Judge Waite, in his review
of the Gospel, says: " Mark has almost a com-
plete parallel in Luke and Matthew taken to-
gether. There are but 24 verses which have no
parallel in either of the other synoptics " (His-
tory of Christianity, p. 350).
Regarding the origin of Mark, Strauss says:
"Our second Gospel cannot have originated from
recollections of Peter's instructions, i. e., from a
source peculiar to itself, since it is evidently a
compilation, whether made from memory or
126 Authenticity of the Bible.
otherwise, from the first and third Gospels "
(Life of Jesus, Vol. I., p. 51).
That neither Peter nor Mark had anything to
do with the composition of this book is admitted
by Davidson. Referring to it he says: "It has
therefore no relation to the Apostle, and de-
rives no sanction from his name. The author is
unknown " (Introduction to New Testament,
Vol. II., p. 84).
Cuke.
In denying the authenticity of Mark and Luke,
what I deny is that these books were written by
the traditional Mark and Luke, the companions
of Peter and Paul. I deny that they were writ-
ten in the apostolic age and by apostolic author-
ity. As stated by " Chambers's Encyclopedia,"
" the question as to their genuineness is in the
main question as to the fact of their existence
at this early period ; the special authorship of
each Gospel is a comparatively less important
question."
The book of Luke is anonymous ; it does not
claim to be written by Luke. And yet the
Fathers may hare been correct in ascribing its
authorship to him. If so, who was this Luke ?
Where did he live ? When did he write his
book ? " Chambers's " says he " was born, ac-
cording to the accounts of the Church Fathers,
at Antioch, in Syria." Smith's "Bible Diction-
ary " says, " He was born at Antioch." The
Gospel is addressed to Theophilus. Who was
Theophilus? The "Bible Dictionary" says:
The Four Gospels. 127
" From the honorable epithet applied to him in
Luke i, 3, it has been argued with much proba-
bility that he was a person in high official posi-
tion." There is but one Theophilus known to
history to whom the writer can possibly refer, and
this is Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch,who lived
in the latter part of the second century. Luke and
Theophilus, then, both belonged to Antioch, and
it is undoubtedly to this Theophilus that Luke's ,
Gospel is addressed. This proves that it was
written more than one hundred years after the
date assigned for its composition. When Luke
assumed the task of writing a Gospel, Matthew,
it has been claimed, was the only Gospel extant.
And yet Luke in his introduction declares that
many had been written ; all of which he admits
were genuine. Jerome says that one of the
Gospels which Luke refers to was the Gospel
of Appelles : " The Evangelist, Luke, declares
that there were many who wrote Gospels
. . . . They were such as that according to
the Egyptians, and Thomas, and Matthias, and
Bartholomew, that of the Twelve Apostles, and
Basilides, and Appelles, and others." The Gos-
pel of Appelles was written about 60 a.d. If
Luke's Gospel was written after the Gospel of
Appelles, it was written after the middle of the
second century.
Dr. Schleiermacher, one of the greatest of
modern theologians, maintains that Luke is a
compilation of thirty-three different manuscripts;
as follows : Chapter i, 1-4 ; i, 5-80 ; ii, 1-20 ; ii,
128 Authenticity of the Bible.
21 ; ii, 22-40 ; ii, 41-52 ; iii, iv, 1-15 ; iv, 16-30 ;
iv, 31-44 ; v, 1-11 ; v, 12-16 ; v, 17-26 ; v, 27-39,
vi, 1-11 ; vi, 12-49 ; vii, 1-10 ; vii, 11-50 ; viii,
1-21 ; viii, 22-56 ; ix, 1-45 ; ix, 46-50 ; ix, 51-62;
x, 1-24 ; x, 25-37 ; x, 38-42 ; xi, 1-13 ; xi, 14-54;
xii, xiii, 1-9 ; xiii, 10-22 ; xii}, 23-35 ; xiv, 1-24 ;
xiv, 25-35 ; xv, xvi, xvii, 1-19 ; xvii, 20-37 ; xviii,
xx, xix ; xxi; xxii, xxiii, 1-49; xxxiii, 60-56; xxiv.
Bishop Thirlwall's Schleiermacher contains
the following in regard to the composition of
Luke : " The main position is firmly established
that Luke is neither an independent writer, nor
has made a compilation from works which ex-
tended over the whole course of the life of Jesus.
He is from beginning to end no more than the
compiler and arranger of documents which he
found in existence, and which he allows to
pass unaltered through his hands " (p. 313).
The immediate source of Luke's Gospel was
undoubtedly the Gospel of Marcion, itself a com-
pilation of older documents. Referring to this
Gospel, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould says : " The
arrangement is so similar that we are forced to
the conclusion that it was either used by St.
Luke or that it was his original composition.
If he used it, then his right to the title of author
of the Third Gospel falls to the ground, as what
he added was of small amount " (Lost and Hos-
tile Gospels).
Cbe Synoptics.
The Synoptics Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is
claimed, are original and independent composi-
The Four Gospels. 1 29
tions, and the oldest of all the Gospels, both
canonical and apocryphal. This claim is dis-
proved by the form and character of their con-
tents. One of two things is certain : either these
writers copied from each other, or all copied
from older documents. The following, which
are but a few of the many passages that might
be adduced, afford unmistakable evidence of
this :
Matthew — " They were astonished at his doc-
trine" (xxii, 33).
Mark — "They were astonished at his doc-
trine" (i, 22).
Luke — "They were astonished at his doc-
trine " (iv, 32).
Matthew — " For he taught them as one having
authority, and not as the scribes " (vii, 29).
Mark — " For he taught them as one that had
authority, and not as the scribes " (i, 22).
Matthew — While he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of
the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude,
with swords and staves, from the chief priests,"
etc. (xxvi, 47).
Mark — " While he yet spake, cometh Judas,
one of the twelve, and with him a great multi-
tude with swords and staves, from the chief
priests," etc. (xiv, 43).
Matthew — "And without a parable spake he
not unto them " (xiii, 34).
Mark — " But without a parable spake he not
unto them " (iv, 34).
Matthew — " Sought opportunity to betray
him " (xxvi, 16).
130 Authenticity of the Bible.
Luke — "Sought opportunity to betray him"
(xxii, 6).
Mark — " But thev understood not that saying"
(ix, 32).
Luke — " But they understood not this saying''
(ix, 45).
The theory that the Synoptics borrowed from
each other will account for the agreements in
their books ; but it will not account for the dis-
agreements, and these are quite as numerous as
the agreements. The following hypothesis, how-
ever, will account for both. When the Synop-
tics were composed probably fifty gospels, some
of recent and others of early origin, were already
in existence. In addition to these were a hun-
dred other documents pertaining to Christ and
his teachings. From this mass of Gospel liter-
ature the Synoptics were compiled. Those por-
tions that agree were taken from a common
source ; those that do not agree were taken from
different documents.
Dean Alford believes that in the early ages of
the church there existed what he terms a "com-
mon substratum of apostolic teachings," " oral
or partially documentary." This, he says, "I
believe to have been the original source of the
common part of our three Gospels." Canon
Westcott admits that " their substance is evi-
dently much older than their form."
Professor Ladd, of Yale College, says : " In
some respects each of the first three Gospels
must be regarded as a compilation ; it consists
The Four Gospels. 131
of material which the others have in common
with it, and which was of a traditional kind
more or less prepared before the author of the
particular Gospel took it in hand to modify and
rearrange it" (What Is the Bible ? p. 295).
Bishop Marsh, in his Michaelis, says : " The
notion of an absolute independence, in respect to
the composition of our three first Gospels, is no
longer tenable " (Vol. Ill, part 2, p. 170).
Prof. Robertson Smith, of Scotland, pro-
nounces them "unapostolic digests of the sec-
ond century." Evanson goes further and de-
clares them to be "spurious fictions of the
second century."
The Encyclopedia Britannica concedes the fact
that Protestant scholarship in Europe has virtu-
ally abandoned the popular orthodox position
regarding the origin of these books. It says :
" It is certain that the Synoptic Gospels took
their present form only by degrees, and that
while they have their root in the apostolic age,
they are fashioned by later influences and
adapted to special wants in the early church.
They are the deposits, in short, of Christian
traditions handed down first of all in an oral
form, before being committed to writing in such
a form as we have them ; and this is now an ac-
cepted conclusion of every historical school of
theologians in England no less than in Germany,
conservative no less than radical."
3obn.
In addition to what has already been adduced
132 Authenticity of the Bible.
against the Johannine authorship of the Fourth
Gospel, I submit the following :
1. John, the disciple of Jesus, was an unlet-
tered fisherman. The author of the Fourth
Gospel was an accomplished scholar and a pol-
ished writer. His book is one of the classics of
Christian literature.
2. The Apostle John was born at Bethsaida.
The author of John says that Bethsaida was in
Galilee (xii, 21). Bethsaida was not in Galilee,
but in Perea, and to assert that John wrote this
Gospel is to assert that he was ignorant of the
location of his own town.
3. " In Bethany beyond Jordan" (New Ver. i,
28). "In Enon near to Salim " (iii, 23). "A
city of Samaria, called Sychar" (iv, 5). These
passages were written by one little acquainted
with the geography of Palestine and unfamiliar
with the scenes he attempts to describe.
4. John, the son of Zebedee, was a Jew. The
manner in which the author of the Fourth Gos-
pel always refers to the Jews is conclusive evi-
dence that he was not a Jew.
5. The Synoptics state that Jesus celebrated
the Passover with his disciples, and was cruci-
fied on the following day. The author of John
states that he was crucified on the previous day,
and therefore did not partake of the Paschal sup-
per. In the second century a great controversy
arose in the church regarding this. Those who
accepted the account given in the Synoptics
observed the feast, while those who accepted
The Four Gospels. 133
the account given in the Fourth Gospel re-
jected it. Now, we have the testimony of
Ireneeus that John himself observed this feast.
"For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp
not to observe it, because he had ever ob-
served it with John, the disciple of our Lord "
(Against Heresies, iii, 3). As John accepted the
account which appears in the Synoptics and
rejected that which appears in the Gospel of
John, he could not have written the Fourth
Gospel.
6. The disciple John is represented as stand-
ing at the cross and witnessing the crucifixion.
The author of John does not claim to have been
present, but appeals to the testimony of an eye-
witness in support of his statements : " And he
that saw it bare record, and his record is true"
(xix, 35).
7. " Now, there was leaning on Jesus' bosom
one of his disciples whom he loved " (xiii, 23).
" The disciple standing by, whom he loved "
(xix, 26). " To Simon Peter, and to the other
disciple, whom Jesus loved " (xx, 2). This be-
loved disciple is said to be John. The Synop-
tics, however, do not represent John as the
favorite disciple. If there was one disciple
whom Jesus loved more than the others, it was
Peter. To ascribe to John the authorship of
the Fourth Gospel is to ascribe to him a spirit
of self-glorification that is simply disgusting.
8. "And many other signs truly did Jesus in
the presence of his disciples, which are not
134 Authenticity of the Bible
written in this book: but these are written, that
ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God : and that believing ye might have
life through his name " (xx, 30, 31). Thus con-
cludes the original Gospel According to St.
John. This book was not written by John, but
it was written by a disciple of John for Johan-
nine Christians. When the Roman Catholic
hierarchy was formed and the Gospel of John
was admitted to the New Testament canon,
there was appended another chapter — a for-
gery. The hero of this chapter is Peter. A
dozen times Jesus calls him by name. To him
Jesus gives the oft repeated injunction, "Feed
my lambs;" " feed my sheep." This chapter
was added to counteract the Johannine influ-
ence and exalt the Petrine teachings so dear to
Rome. To give an appearance of genuineness
to this forgery, " the disciple whom Jesus
loved " is again introduced and declared the
author of the Gospel, thus making John himself
a supporter of Petrine supremacy.
9. Some of the most important events in the
life of Jesus, the Synoptics state, were witnessed
by John. The author of the Fourth Gospel
knows nothing about them. " All the events
said to have been witnessed by John alone are
omitted by John alone. This fact seems fatal
either to the reality of the events in question
or to the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel"
(Greg).
10. Even Christians have tacitly admitted the
The Four Gospels. 135
hopelessness of maintaining the authenticity of
both the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics. If
the Synoptics are authentic, the Fourth Gospel
cannot be. Smith's " Bible Dictionary" says:
" In the Fourth Gospel the narrative coincides
with that of the other three in a few passages
only. Putting aside the account of the Passion,
there are only three facts which John relates in
common with the other Evangelists " (Art. Gos-
pels).
11. The author of John declares Jesus to be
God. The complete deification of Jesus was
the growth of generations. The early Chris-
tians, including the Apostles, believed him to
be a man. Later, he became a demi-god, and
the writings and traditions which represented
him as such formed the materials from which
the Synoptics were compiled. Not until the
latter part of the second century was Jesus
placed among the gods, and not until this time
was the Fourth Gospel written.
Alluding to the Fourth Gospel, Canon West-
cott says : " The earliest account of the origin
of the Gospel is already legendary."
Professor Davidson says : " The Johannine
authorship has receded before the tide of mod-
ern criticism, and though this tide is arbitrary
at times it is here irresistible " (Canon of the
Bible, p. 127).
From a work entitled " The New Bible and
Its Uses " Prof. Andrew D. White, our present
minister to Germany, in his " Warfare of Sci-
136 Authenticity of the Bible.
ence " (vol. ii, p. 306). quotes the following in
relation to John, which shows how rapidly the
supposed authenticity of Bible books is disap-
pearing before the investigations of the Higher
Critics :
"In the period of thirty years ending in 1860,
of the fifty great authorities in this line, four to
one were in favor of the Johannine authorship.
. . . Of those who have contributed impor-
tant articles to the discussion from 1880 to 1890,
about two to one reject the Johannine author-
ship of the Gospel in its present shape — that is
to say, while forty years ago great scholars
were/our to one in favor of, they are now two to
one against, the claim that the Apostle John
wrote the Gospel as we have it."
ClK Tour Gospels.
The principal reason for rejecting both the
reputed authorship aud the credibility of the
Four Gospels is the contradictory character of
their contents. If Jesus Christ was a historical
personage, as Christians believe, these alleged
biographies were not written by his Apostles
and their companions; neither were they com-
piled from authentic records.
The Greek text of the Gospels disproves their
authenticity. Their assigned authors, or two of
them at least, were unlearned Jews. Their work
was confined chiefly to the lower classes of their
countrymen, in a land where Greek was almost
unknown. The absurdity of this is shown by
Mrs. Besant : " The only parallel for so curious
The Four Gospels. 137
a phenomenon as these Greek Gospels, written
by ignorant Jews, would be if a Cornish fisher-
man and a low London attorney, both perfectly
ignorant of German, wrote in German the say-
ings and doings of a Middlesex carpenter, and
as their work was entirely confined to the lower
classes of the people, who knew nothing of Ger-
man, and they desired to place within their
reach full knowledge of the carpenter's life,
they circulated it among them in German only,
and never wrote anything about him in English."
The doctrines of the immaculate conception
and of a material resurrection, so prominent in
the Four Gospels, are proofs of their late origin.
These doctrines are not taught in the older
books of the New Testament, and were unknown
to the Christians of the first century.
The scholarly author of "Supernatural Relig-
ion," after a patient and exhaustive examination
of every accessible document relating to the
subject, writes as follows :
" After having exhausted the literature and
the testimony bearing on the point, we have
not found a single distinct trace of any of
those Gospels during the first century and a
half after the death of Jesus " (Vol. II., p. 248).
Bishop Faustus, a heretical theologian of the
fifth century, referring to this so so-called Gos-
pel history, says :
"It is allowed not to have been written by the
Son himself nor by his Apostles, but long after
by some unknown men who, lest they should be
138 Authenticity of the Bible.
suspected of writing things they knew nothiug
of, gave to their books the names of the Apos-
tles."
Regarding these four books and their sequel,
Acts, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, the noted theologian
and critic of Holland, voices the opinion of him-
self and his renowned associates, Dr. Kuenen
and Dr. Oort, in the following words :
"Our interest is more especially excited by
the five historical books of the New Testament.
If we might really suppose them to have been
written by the men whose names they bear, we
could never be thankful enough for such pre-
cious authorities. . . . But, alas! not one
of these five books was really written by the
person whose name it bears — though for the
sake of brevity we shall still call the writers
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — and they are
all of more recent date than their headings
would lead us to suppose. . . . We cannot
say that the Gospels and the book of Acts are
unauthentic, for not one of them professes to
give the name of its author. They appeared
anonymously. The titles placed above them in
our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesias-
tical tradition which deserves no confidence what-
ever " (Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 24).
The Pentateuch was not written by Moses,
nor the Four Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John. The authenticity of the chief books
of the New Testament, like that of the chief
books of the Old, must be given up. The re-
The Four Gospels. 139
suits of our review of them may be summed up
in the words of the great German, Ferdinand
Christian Baur : " These Gospels are spurious,
and were written in the second century."
140 Authenticity of the Bible.
CHAPTER X.
ACTS, CATHOLIC EPISTLES, REV-
ELATION.
In this chapter will be reviewed the so-called
historical book of Acts, the Catholic Epistles,
and Revelation. In some versions of the New
Testament the Catholic Epistles come immedi-
ately after Acts.
Acts of tbe Apostles.
The Acts of the Apostles is one of many
books bearing this name which appeared during
the early centuries of the church. Concerning
the origin of our canonical Acts, Dr. Hitchcock
says: "It was written by Luke, in considerable
part from his own observations of the facts nar-
rated, and about ad. 63, and at Rome, during
Paul's stay there."
The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophi-
lus; the book of Acts is addressed to the same per-
son,and as the author states that he has addressed
a former work to him, it is inferred that both
works were written by the same person. It has
been shown that Theophilus lived in the latter
part of the second century, and that the Gospel
Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. 141
of Luke was written at this time. If Luke and
Acts, then, were written by the same person,
and Acts was written after Luke, it also must
have been written late in the second century,
and consequently could not have been written
by Luke, the companion of Paul.
It is asserted that Luke was the associate of
Paul, and that he was in Rome with Paul when
his book was written. This implies Paul's
sanction of the book. But if the Epistles of
Paul are genuine, and it is generally agreed that
those bearing upon this question are, this can
not be true; for the Paul of these epistles and
the Paul of Acts are two entirely different
characters.
The book is entitled the Acts of the Apostles;
and yet the acts of Peter and Paul are almost
the only apostolic acts recorded. Besides the
narrative of the author, the book consists
largely of discourses attributed to Peter and
Paul. But the style of the " unlearned and
ignorant" (iv, 13) Peter is so similar to that of
Paul with his " much learning " (xxvi, 24), and
both so closely resemble the style of the author,
that one not strongly imbued with faith
must conclude that the whole is the product of
one mind.
The author cites a speech made by Gamaliel
before the Jewish council, in which he uses the
following language: "For before these days
rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be some-
body; to whom a number of men, almost four
142 Authenticity of the Bible.
hundred, joined themselves, who were slain,"
etc. (v, 36).
Josephus, who gives an account of this event
(Antiq. Bk. xx, ch. v, sec. 1), says that it hap-
pened " while Fadus was Procurator of Judea."
This was 45 or 46 a.d. Gamaliel's speech was
delivered, according to the accepted chronology,
29 a.d. Thus the author of Acts makes Gama-
liel refer to an event as long past which in
reality did not happen until sixteen years after
that time.
Continuing his speech, Gamaliel refers to an-
other event, as follows: " After this man [Theu-
das] rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the
taxing, and drew away much people after him;
he also perished " (37).
Here the author makes Gamaliel state that
the sedition of Judas of Galilee occurred after
that of Theudas, when in fact it occurred in 6
A..D. — forty years before. Such grave discrepan-
cies could have been made only by one writing
long after the date claimed.
Holtzmann, a German critic, has shown that
the author of Acts borrowed from the Antiqui-
ties of Josephus. The Antiquities appeared 93
a.d. — just thirty years after the date assigned to
Acts.
This book will not be given up by orthodox
Christians without a struggle. The authen-
ticity of primitive Christianity depends largely
upon the authenticity of this book. Renan
who was a Rationalist, and, at the same time
Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. 143
something of an apologist for Christianity, af-
firms that the last pages of Acts, which are de-
voted almost entirely to Paul's missionary labors
constitute the only historical record of the early
church. At the same time, he admits that it is
the most faulty book in the New Testament.
The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas concedes the same. He
says:
"Of the earliest fortunes of the community
of Jesus, the primitive history of the Chris-
tian church and the whole of the apostolic
age, we should know as good as nothing if
we had not the book of Acts. If only we
could trust the writer fully! But we soon see
that the utmost caution is necessary. For we
have another account of some of the things
about which this writer tells us — an account
written by the very man to whom they refer, the
best possible authority, therefore, as to what
really took place. This man is Paul himself.
In the first two chapters of the epistle to the
Galatians he gives us several details of his own
past life; and no sooner do we place his story
side by side with that of the Acts than we
clearly perceive that this book contains an in-
correct account, and that its inaccuracy is not
the result of accident or ignorance, but of a delib-
erate design, an attempt — conceived no doubt
with the best intentions — to hide in some de-
gree the actual course of events " (Bible for
Learners, Vol. III., p. 25).
The dissensions which arose in the first cen-
144 Authenticity of the Bible.
turj between the Jewish Christiana and the
Gentile Christians had only increased with time,
and these were among the chief obstacles in the
way of uniting Christians and establishing the
Catholic church. The composition of Acts was
one of the many attempts made toward the close
of the second century to heal these dissensions.
The author was a man who cared little for either
Petrine or Pauline Christianity — little for the
so-called truths of Christianity in any form —
but a man who cared much for church unity
and church power.
The book of Acts was little known at first.
St. Chrysostom, writing in the fifth century, says:
"This book is not so much as known to many.
They know neither the book nor by whom it
was written."
3ames and lude.
The seven Catholic Epistles, James, First and
Second Peter, First, Second, and Third John,
and Jude, have been declared spurious or
doubtful by eminent Christian scholars in every
age of the church. The Fathers were loath to
admit them into the Bible, and their right to a
place there has always been disputed.
James and Jude, the first and the last of these
epistles, orthodox Christians believe, were writ-
ten by James and Jude, the brothers of Jesus,
in 62 and 64 a. d.
Three leading orthodox authorities, repre-
senting the three great divisions of the Chris-
Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. 145
tian church, Cajetan of the Roman Catholic
church; Lucar of the Greek Catholic church,
and Erasmus of the Protestant church, have de-
nied the authenticity of James. Luther him-
self refused to accept it. He says: " The Epistle
of James I account the writing of no apostle."
The composition of Jude and Second Peter
are both placed in a.d. 64. There is no proof
that either was in existence in a.d. 164. It is
only necessary to read Jude and the second
chapter of Second Peter to see that one bor-
rowed from the other. While most believe that
the author of Second Peter used Jude in the
construction of his epistle, Luther contends
that Jude is the plagiarist. He says: "The
epistle of Jude is an abstract or copy of St.
Peter's Second " (Preface to Luther's Version).
Jude cites as authentic the apocryphal book of
Enoch, and the apocryphal story of Michael the
archangel contending with Satan for the body of
Moses. Origen, Jerome, and others in ancient,
and Calvin, Grotius and others in modern times,
have doubted its authenticity. Mayerhoff says
it was written in the second century to combat
the heresies of the Carpocratians.
epistles of Peter.
Most Christians contend that the First Epistle
of Peter is genuine. Some of the early Chris-
tian Fathers, however, rejected it. Irengeus did
not place it in his canon. Not until the third
century was it accepted as the writing of Peter.
The celebrated Tubingen school of critics re-
146 Authenticity of the Bible.
jects the authenticity of the book. Baur and
Zeller believe it to be a Pauline document.
Schwegler believes that it was written to recon-
cile the Pauline and Petrine doctrines. The
Dutch critics say that it was borrowed largely
from Paul and James, and that it was probably
written early in the second century. Regarding
its authorship, Jules Soury, of the University of
France, says :
"Nobody, however, knows better than he
[Renan] that the so-called First Epistle of Peter,
full of allusions to Paul's writings, as well as
the epistle to the Hebrews and the epistle of
James, dates in all probability from the year 130
ad., at the earliest, thus placing two generations
between the time of its composition and the
latter years of the reign of Nero, when Peter is
fabled to have been in Rome" (Jesus and the
Gospels, p. 32).
All critics pronounce Second Peter a forgery.
Chambers's Encyclopedia says : " So far as ex-
ternal authority is concerned, it has hardly any.
The most critical and competent of the Fathers
were suspicious of its authenticity; it was rarely
if ever quoted, and was not formally admitted
into the canon till the Council of Hippo, 393
a.d. The internal evidence is just as unsatis-
factory."
Smith's " Bible Dictionary " contains the fol-
lowing relative to its authenticity : " We have
few references to it in the writings of the early
Fathers; the style differs materially from that of
Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. 147
the First Epistle, and the resemblance amount-
ing to a studied imitation between this epistle
and that of Jude, seems scarcely reconcilable
with the position of Peter. . . . Many re-
ject the epistle altogether as spurious."
It is believed by some that the original title
of Second Peter was the Epistle of Simeon.
Grotius argues that it is a compilation from two
older epistles. The third chapter begins as fol-
lows : " This second epistle, beloved, I now
write unto you." These words clearly denote
the beginning of a document. Those who affirm
its genuineness consider the second chapter an
interpolation. Westcott says there is no evi-
dence of the existence of this epistle prior to
170 a.d. Scaliger declares it to be a "fiction
of some ancient Christian misemploying his
leisure time."
epi$w$ or 3oiw.
The so-called Epistles of John, so far as the
books themselves are concerned, are anonymous.
They do not purport to have been written by
the Apostle John, nor by anyone bearing the
name of John.
Of First John, "Chambers's Encyclopedia"
says : " Of the epistles it is almost certain that
the First proceeded from the same writer who
composed the [Fourth] Gospel. In style, lan-
guage, and doctrine, it is identical with it." If
John did not write the Fourth Gospel, and it is
conceded by most writers that he did not, then
he did not write this epistle.
148 Authenticity of the Bible.
Referring to the Gospel of John, whose authen-
ticity he denies and whose composition he as-
signs to the second century, Dr. Hooykaas says:
" The First Epistle of John soon issued from
the same school in imitation of the Gospel"
(Bible for Learners, Vol. Ill, p. 692).
Of two passages in the First Epistle, ii, 23,
and v, 7, which teach the doctrine of the Trinity,
the " Bible Dictionary" says : " It would appear
without doubt that they are not genuine." The
Revisers of the King James version pronounced
them spurious.
The second and third epistles were not writ
ten by the writer of ihe first. The early Fathers
rejected them. Eusebius in the fourth century
classed them with the doubtful books. It has
been claimed that the second epistle was written
for the purpose of counteracting the heretical
teachings of Basilides and his followers. Basi-
lides was a famous writer of the second century.
These epistles have the following superscrip-
tions : " The elder [presbyter! unto the elect
lady" to the first, and " The elder unto the well-
beloved Gaius" to the second. The declaration
that they are from an elder or presbyter proves
that they are not from an apostle, and conse-
quently not from the Apostle John. If they
were written by a writer named John, it was
probably John the Presbyter, who lived in the
second century. Jerome states that they were
generally credited to him. In his account of
John the Presbyter, Judge Waite says : " He
Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. 149
is also, not without reason, believed to have
been the author of the Epistles of John (History
of the Christian Religion, p. 228).
Revelation.
Revelation is the last book of the Bible, and
the one least understood. Christians themselves
are not agreed as to its meaning. Some believe it
to be a series of prophecies which have had
their fulfilment in the struggles between Chris-
tianity and Paganism ; others believe that its
prophecies are yet to be fulfilled ; still others
pronounce it a symbolical poem, representing
the conflict between truth and error, while not a
few consider it the recorded fancies of a diseased
imagination.
The book purports to be from " John to the
seven churches of Asia" (i, 4). This John is de-
clared to be the Apostle John and its author-
ity is based upon this claim. Smith's " Bible
Dictionary" says : " The question as to the can-
onical authority of the Revelation resolves itself
into a question of authorship. Was St. John
the Apostle and Evangelist the writer of the
Revelation?" If John the Apostle and the
author of the Fourth Gospel were one, as as-
sumed by the " Bible Dictionary," then the
question of its authenticity and canonical
authority must be abandoned, for the author of
the Fourth Gospel did not write it. There is
nothing in common between them. The Ger-
man theologian, Lucke, says . " If all critical ex-
perience and rules in such literary questions do
150 Authenticity of the Bible.
not deceive, it is certain that the Evangelist and
Apocalyptist are two different persons." De
Wette says : " The Apostle John, if he be the
author of the Fourth Gospel and of the Johannine
epistles, did not write the Apocalypse." Re-
garding this conclusion, Ewald says : "All men
capable of forming a judgment are of the same
opinion." Among the eminent critics and com.
mentators who take this position are Luther
Erasmus, Michaelis, Schleiermacher, Credner,
Zeller, Evanson, Baur, Renan, and Davidson.
The Apostle John wrote neither the Fourth
Gospel, the so-called Epistles of John, nor Rev-
elation. That he did not write Revelation is
shown by the following :
1. The author does not claim to be an
apostle.
2. He refers to the Twelve Apostles (xxi, 14)
in a way that forbids the supposition that he
was one of them.
3. The Apostle John is declared to have been
illiterate and incapable of writing a book.
4. It is addressed to the seven churches of
Asia, and yet the seven churches of Asia, to
which it is addressed, rejected it.
The Alogi maintained that it was a forgery
which came from Corinth. Dionysius, Bishop of
Alexandria, writing in the third century, says :
"Divers of our predecessors have wholly re-
fused and rejected this book, and by discussing
the several parts thereof have found it obscure
and void of reason and the title forged."
Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. 151
Concerning its rejection by modern church-
men, the Edinburgh Review (No. 131) says:
"The most learned and intelligent of Protestant
divines here almost all doubted or denied the
canonicity of the book of Revelation. Calvin
and Beza pronounced the book unintelligible,
and prohibited the pastors of Geneva from all
attempts at interpretation." Dr. South de-
scribed it as "a book that either found a man
mad or left him so."
Luther, in the Preface to his New Testament
(Ed. of 1522) writes : " In the Revelation of John
much is wanting to let me deem it either pro-
phetic or apostolical."
152 Authenticity of the Bible.
CHAPTER XI.
PAULINE EPISTLES.
Fourteen books— Romans, First and Second
Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippine,
Colossians, First and Second Thessaloniane,
First and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon,
and Hebrews— are ascribed, some correctly,
some doubtfully, and others falsely, to Paul.
They were all written, it is claimed, between 52
and 65 A. d.
Genuine €pi$tlc$.
The genuine Epistles of Paul, those whose
authenticity is conceded by nearly all critics,
are Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and
Galatians. The term " genuine " is applied to
the books as originally written, and not to the
text as it now exists. It is probable that they
have undergone various changes since they left
Paul's hand. The last two chapters of Romans
are believed to be interpolations. The fifteenth
consists chiefly of irrelevant matter which de-
tracts from the symmetry of the work. The
sixteenth is mostly rilled with salutations. In
these several women are given a prominence in
church affairs that is wholly at variance with
Pauline Epistles. 153
Paul's attitude toward woman. The subscrip-
tion to the First Epistle to the Corinthians states
that it"was written from Philippi." Thel9th verse
of the last chapter shows that Paul was in Asia
instead of Europe, while the 8fch verse expressly
declares that he was at Ephesus The Second
Epistle to Corinthians, it is declared, " was
written from Philippi" also. That this is doubtful
is admitted even by the most orthodox author-
ities. The subscription to Galatians reads as
follows : " Unto the Galatians, written from
Rome." This book was written between 52 and
55 A.D.; Paul did not go to Rome until 61 a.d.
This epistle was written from Ephesus.
While critics are nearly unanimous in ac-
knowledging the genuineness of these books, a
few, including Professor Thudichum of Germany,
Prof. Edwin Johnson of England, and W. H.
Burr of this country, pronounce them forgeries,
and contend that the Paul of the New Testa-
ment is a myth.
Doubtful Epistles.
The doubtful Epistles, those whose authentic-
ity is accepted by some critics and rejected by
others, are Philippians, First Thessalonians, and
Philemon. Sixty years ago to this list of doubt-
ful books critics would have added three others
— Ephesians, Colossians, and Second Thessalo-
nians; but the critical labors of the Tubingen
school and others have relegated these to the
already burdened shelf of spurious Bible books.
In regard to Philippians, Ferdinand Baur,
154 Authenticity of the Bible.
for thirty years head of the Tubingen school
and unquestionably the greatest of Bible critics,
says : " The Epistles to the Colossians and to
the Philippians . . . are spurious, and
were • written by the Catholic school near the
end of the second century, to heal the strife be-
tween the Jew and Gentile factions " (Paul the
Apostle of Jesus Christ).
Baur also rejects First Thessalonians. He
contends that this, as well as the Second Epis-
tle, contains teachings quite at variance with
the teachings of Paul. The German critic
Schrader is confident that Paul did not write
First Thessalonians.
Respecting Philemon, Dr. Hitchcock says:
" This brief Epistle was written at the same
time with those to the Colossians and Ephe-
sians, and was sent along with them by Tychicus
and Onesimus." As Colossians and Ephesians
have both been declared spurious by the ablest
Christian scholars, Philemon, to say the least,
is placed in bad company. This Epistle was
written in behalf of one Onesimus, a zealous
Christian, who is also mentioned in Colossians.
There was an Onesimus, a zealous church
worker, living in 175 a.d.
Holland's critics, Dr. Kuenen, Dr. Oort, and
Dr. Hooykaas, are disposed to accept Philip-
pians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon, but
admit that there are grave doubts concerning
the authenticity of each.
Pauline Epistles. 155
Spurious €pi$tk$.
The spurious Epistles, those whose authen-
ticity is generally denied by the critics, are
Ephesians, Colossians, Second Thessalonians,
First and Second Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews.
Ewald and De Wette both admit that Ephesians
was not written by St. Paul. De Wette thinks
it was compiled from Colossians. Davidson and
Mayerhoff believe that neither Ephesians nor
Colossians is genuine. I have quoted Baur's re-
jection of Colossians. The Encyclopedia Bri-
tannica says : " It is undeniable that the Epis-
tle to the Colossians and the so-called Epistle
to the Ephesians differ considerably in language
and thought from other Pauline Epistles and
that their relation to one another demands ex-
planation."
First and Second Thessalonians are pro-
n ounced the oldest of Paul's writings, both
belonging, it is claimed, to 52 a.d. The author
of the Second Epistle is very desirous of having
his writing accepted as a genuine Epistle of
Paul. Several times he declares himself to be
Paul. He warns them not to be deceived " by
letter as from us " (ii, 2), and concludes with
" the salutation of Paul with mine own hand,
which is the token in every Epistle." This
Epistle affirms the first to be a forgery. The
first was probably written at an early date, and,
whether genuine or spurious, was accepted as a
Pauline Epistle. In it the early advent of Christ
— during Paul's lifetime — is predicted. " We,
156 Authenticity of the Bible.
which are alive and remain unto the coming of
the Lord shall not prevent them which are
asleep " (iv, 15). " Then we which are alive and
remain shall be caught up together with them
in the clouds" (17). Generations passed, Christ
did not come, and the church was losing faith in
Paul and Christianity. To restore confidence,
another letter from Paul to the Thessalonians
was "found," and this repudiates the first. He
exhorts them not to be troubled, " neither by
spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as
that the day of Christ is at hand" (ii, 2). It
teaches the second coming of Christ, but care-
fully leaves the time indefinite. Whatever may
be said of the First Epistle, the Second is
clearly a forgery.
With respect to these Epistles, the Britannica
says : " The predominant opinion of modern
criticism at present is that the genuineness of
the First Epistle is certain, while that of the
Second must be given up."
First and Second Timothy and Titus, known
as the Pastoral Epistles, and Hebrews were not
written by Paul. The Pastoral Epistles are
forgeries, while Hebrews is an anonymous work.
The contents of these books betray a later date.
Their teachings are not the teachings of Paul.
Their language is utterly unlike that of the
genuine Epistles. They contain two hundred
words never used by Paul. Marcion, the most
noted Pauline Christian of the second century,
who made a collection of Paul's Epistles, ex-
Pauline Epistles. 157
eluded them. Tatian and Basilides also rejected
them.
Against the authenticity of the Pastoral Epis-
tles may be cited nearly every modern critic,
including the four great names of Baur, Eich-
orn, De Wette, and Davidson. Baur says they
were written in the second century.
While thirteen of the so-called Pauline Epis-
tles claim to have been written by Paul, He-
brews alone is silent regarding its authorship.
Tertullian classed it with the apocryphal books,
but thought it might have been written by Bar-
nabas. In the Clermont codex it is called the
Epistle of Barnabas. According to Origen, some
ascribe it to Luke, others to Clement of Rome.
Origen himself says : "Who it was that really
wrote the Epistle, God only knows." Dr. West-
cott admits that there is no evidence that Paul
wrote it. Grotius attributes it to Luke, Luther
to Apollos. Luther says : " That the Epistle to
the Hebrews is not by St. Paul, nor, indeed, by
any apostle, is shown by chapter ii, 3" (Preface
to Luther's N. T.).
Concerning the seven books that we have
been considering, Dr. Hooykaas says :
"Fourteen Epistles are said to be Paul's; but
we must at once strike off one, namely, that to the
Hebrews, which does not bear his name at all.
. . . The two letters to Timothy and the let-
ter to Titus were certainly composed long after
the death of Paul. . It is more than
probable that the letters to the Ephesians and
158 Authenticity of the Bible.
Colossians are also unauthentic, and the same
suspicion rests, perhaps, on the first, but cer-
tainly on the second of the Epistles to theThes-
salonians" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 23).
The Eev. John W. Chadwick, in his "Bible of
To-day," says that the first four Epistles " are
his [Paul's] with absolute certainty." Four
others, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalo-
nians, and Philemon, he is disposed to accept,
but admits that their authenticity is doubtful.
The remaining books he pronounces spurious.
Persons in this age have little conception of
the prevalency of literary forgeries in the early
centuries of the church. Now, when books are
printed in editions of 1,000 or more, such for-
geries are nearly impossible and consequently
rare. When books existed in manuscript only,
they were neither difficult nor uncommon.
Books and letters purporting to have been writ-
ten by Paul, Peter, John, and other Apostles
were readily " discovered " when wanted. Of
these Apostolic forgeries Prof. John Tyndall
says : "When arguments or proofs were needed,
whether on the side of the Jewish Christians or
of the Gentile Christians, a document was dis-
covered which met the case, and on which the
name of an Apostle or of some authoritative
contemporary of the Apostles was boldly in-
scribed. The end being held to justify the
means, there was no lack of manufactured tes-
timony."
Pauline Epistles. 159
Conclusion.
Of these fourteen Epistles ascribed to Paul,
four, then, Romans, First and Second Corinth-
ians, and Galatians, are pronounced genuine;
three, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Phi-
lemon, are of doubtful authenticity; while seven,
Ephesians, Colossians, Second Thessalonians,
First and Second Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews,
are spurious.
The genuine writings of Paul are probably
the oldest Christian writings extant. Admitting
the authenticity of these four books, of course,
is not admitting the authenticity of Christianity.
Paul was not a witness of the alleged events
upon which historical Christianity rests. He
was not a convert to Christianity until many
years after Christ's death. He did not see
Christ (save in a vision); he did not listen to his
teachings; he did not learn from his disciples.
" The gospel which was preached of me is not
after man, for I neither received it of man,
neither was I taught it" (Gal. i, 11, 12).
Paul accepted only to a small extent the re-
ligion of Christ's disciples. He professed to
derive his knowledge from supernatural sources
— from trances and visions. Regarding the value
of such testimony, the author of " Supernatural
Religion" says : "No one can deny, and medical
and psychological annals prove, that many men
have been subject to visions and hallucinations
which have never been seriously attributed to
supernatural causes. There is not one single
160 Authenticity of the Bible.
valid reason removing the ecstatic visions and
trances of the Apostle Paul from this class."
We have now reviewed the books of the Bible
and presented some of the historical and inter-
nal evidences bearing upon the question of
their authenticity. The authenticity of the
books of the New Testament, we have seen, is
but little better attested than that of the Old.
The authors of twenty books — Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John, Acts, Ephesians, Colossians, Sec-
ond Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy,
Titus, Hebrews, James, First and Second Peter,
First, Second, and Third John, Jude, and Rev-
elation— are unknown. Three books — Philip-
pians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon — are
of questionable authenticity. Four books only
— Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and
Galatians — are generally admitted to be au-
thentic.
Of the sixty-six books of the Bible at least
fifty are anonymous works or forgeries. To
teach that these books are divine, and to accept
them as such, denotes a degree of depravity on
the one hand, and an amount of credulity on
the other, that are not creditable to a moral and
enlightened people.
Part II.
CREDIBILITY.
PART H.-CREDIBILITY,
CHAPTER XII.
TEXTUAL CORRUPTIONS.
" The Bible does not contain the shadow of
a shade of error from Genesis to Revelation "
— Cheever.
" Every book of it, every chapter of it, every
verse of it, every word of it, is the direct utter-
ance of the Most High." — Bunyan.
Such are the dogmatic assertions of Bibliola-
ters. So much confidence do they pretend to
repose in the doctrine of the Bible's inerrancy
that they propose the most crucial tests for its
submission.
The Rev. Jeremiah Jones, one of the highest
orthodox authorities on the canon, lays down
this rule in determining the right of a book to a
place in the canon:
"That book is apocryphal which contains
contradictions; or which contains histories, or
proposes doctrines contrary to those which are
known to be true; or which contains ludicrous
164 Credibility of the Bible.
trifling, fabulous, or silly relations; or which,
contains anachronisms; or wherein the style is
clearly different from the known style of the
author whose name it bears " (New Methods,
Vol. I, p. 70).
The Rev. T. Hartwell Home, a standard au-
thority in the orthodox church, submits this
test in determining the divinity of the Bible as
a whole:
"If real contradictions exist in the Bible, it
is sufficient proof that it is not divinely inspired,
whatever pretenses it may make to such inspi-
ration" (Introduction to the Scriptures, Vol. L,
p. 581).
I challenge the verity of Cheever's and Bun-
yan's claims and proceed to apply to this book .
the tests of Jones and Home. Instead of not
containing the shadow of a shade of error, I
shall show that it is so filled with the darkness
of error that the truths existing in it are scarcely
discernible. Instead of being the direct utterance
of the Most High, I shall show that every book
of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every
word of it, is the direct utterance of man. I
shall impeach the authority of the Christian
canon and show that all of its books are apocry-
phal; that they contain histories and propose
doctrines that are contrary to what is known to
be true; that they contain ludicrous, trifling,
fabulous, and silly relations; that they abound
with anachronisms. If I have not already
shown that the style of these books is clearly
Textual Corruptions. 165
different from the known style of the authors
whose names they bear, it is because the
" known style " of these authors is a myth. I
shall adduce enough real contradictions from
the Bible to not only refute the claim that it is
divinely inspired, but to destroy its credibility
even as a human authority.
errors of transcribers.
If the Bible were a divine revelation, as
'claimed, it would have been divinely preserved.
Not only the original writers, but the tran-
scribers, translators, and printers, also, would
have been divinely inspired. It is admitted
that divine inspiration was confined to the
original writers. Consequently the Bible, as we
have it, cannot be an infallible revelation. If it
be not an infallible revelation it cannot be a
divine revelation.
It is popularly supposed that the books of the
Bible, as originally written, have been preserved
free from corruptions. That they are full of
textual errors — that the books as they were
originally written no longer exist and cannot be
restored — is conceded even by the most ortho-
dox of the Lower Critics. The principal causes
of these corruptions are the following:
1. Clerical errors. The invention of printing
made it possible to preserve the original text of
a writer comparatively free from errors. "With
the works of ancient writers this was impossible.
For a period of from 1,200 to 2,200 years pre-
1 66 Credibility of the Bible.
ceding the invention of printing the only means
of preserving the books of the Bible was the
pen of the scribe. However careful the copyist
might be, errors would creep into the text. But
instead of being careful these copyists, many of
them, were notoriously careless. This is es-
pecially evident in the case of numbers. Hun-
dreds of errors were made in the transcription
of these alone. Probably one-half of the num-
bers given in the Old Testament, and many in,
the New, are not those given in the original
text, but are errors due to the carelessness of
transcribers and a want of divine supervision.
2. Interpolations. There are thousands of
interpolations in the Bible. A considerable
portion of the words printed in Italics in our
version are acknowledged interpolations. Many
of them appeared first in the shape of marginal
notes intended to explain or correct a state-
ment in the text. Later scribes incorporated
these into the text. And thus, while God was
engaged in watching sparrows and numbering
the hairs in his children's heads, additions in
this and various other ways were made to his
word. In many instances whole chapters were
added to the original documents.
3. Omissions. Much matter was carelessly
omitted. To quote the Bible for Learners, " not
only letters and words, but whole verses have
fallen out." Objectionable matter was inten-
tionally omitted. Chrysostom tells us that
entire books were destroyed by the Jews. They
Textual Corruptions. 167
were on such familiar terms with the Deity that
they could obtain other and more desirable
ones for the asking,
4. Textual changes. In innumerable places
the text has been wilfully changed to suit
the religious and other notions of the priests.
Let me cite an example. In early copies, and
probably in the original text, Genesis xviii, 22,
reads as follows: " The Lord yet stood before
Abraham." They thought it detracted from
God's dignity to stand before one of his crea-
tures, and so they changed it to its present
form, " Abraham stood yet before the Lord."
Concerning the corruptions of the scribes,
Dr. Davidson says: " They did not refrain from
changing what had been written, or inserting
fresh matter " (Canon, p. 34). t
The facts that I have mentioned apply not
■nerely to the Old Testament, but to the New
Testament as well. Westcott, a very high au-
thority on the canon, says: " It does not appear
that any special care was taken in the first age
to preserve the books of the New Testament
from the various injuries of time or to insure
perfect accuracy of transcription. . . . The
original copies seem to have soon perished."
Errors of translators.
These errors of the transcribers have been
immeasurably increased by the translators. A
perfect translation is impossible, and for these
reasons: 1. No language has words to express
1 68 Credibility of the Bible.
perfectly all the words of another language. 2.
Languages change with time and the words of
one age have a different meaning in the next.
3. Many writers do not express themselves
clearly, and it is often impossible to fully com-
prehend their meaning. This is especially true
of Bible writers. 4. No two translators will
grasp the meaning of a writer in exactly the
same manner, or convey it in the same words.
In regard to the Old Testament the Hebrew
language, as anciently written, was the most
difficult of all languages to translate. It was
written from right to left; the words contained
no vowels; there were no intervening spaces
between the words, and no punctuation marks.
Even with the introduction of vowel points
many words in Hebrew, as in English, have
more than one meaning. Without these points,
as originally written, the number is increased a
hundred fold. The five English words, bag, beg,
big, bog, and bug, are quite unlike and easily
distinguished. Omit the vowels, as the ancient
Jews did, and we have five words exactly alike,
or rather, one word with five different mean-
ings. The Hebrew language was thus largely
composed of words with several meanings.' As
there were no spaces between words it was
sometimes hard to tell where a word began or
where it ended; and as there were no punctua-
tion marks, and no spaces between sentences,
paragraphs, or even sections, it was often diffi-
Textual Corruptions. T69
*
cult to determine the meaning of a writer after
the words had been deciphered.
Here is the best known passage in the Bible
printed in English as the Jews would have
written it in Hebrew:
bllwhtmcmdgnkhtmnhtbdllhnvhntrhchwrhtfR
vgrfwsstbdrsvgrfdndrbldrdshtsvgnvhnstshtrnnd
nkhtsnhtrflvmrfsrvldtbnttpmttntnsdldnsrtbdrn
nmrvrfrlghtdnrphtdnmdg
In the printed text there is little danger of
mistaking one letter for another; in the written
text there is, especially if they resemble each
other. The Hebrew letters corresponding to our
D and R were nearly alike and easily con-
founded. Consequently in Numbers i, 14, we
have "Eliasaph the son of Deuel," and in Num-
bers ii, 14, " Eliasaph the son of Reuel." Only
God knows which is correct, and he does not
care to enlighten U3. Therefore we must be-
lieve that both are correct or be damned.
St. Jerome says: " When we translate the
Hebrew into Latin we are sometimes guided
by conjecture." Le Clerc says: "The learned
merely guess at the sense of the Old Testament
in an infinity of places " (Sentim, p. 156). The
Old Testament as we have it, then, consists
largely of guesses and conjectures.'
The title page of our Authorized Version of
the Bible contains these words: " Translated out
of the original tongues." The Old Testament
is declared to be a correct translation of the
170 Credibility of the Bible.
.* •
accepted Hebrew. In its preparation, however,
the Greek more than the Hebrew version was
followed. Referring to the King James trans-
lators, the historian John Clark Ridpath says:
"Following the Septuagint rather than the He-
brew original, they fell into many errors which
a riper scholarship would have avoided " (Cy-
clopedia of Universal History. Vol. II., p. 763).
Instead of being a collection of original guesses
and conjectures our Old Testament is, to a great
extent, merely a bad English translation of a
corrupted copy of a spurious Greek translation
of the original (?) Hebrew.
On the title page of the Authorized Version
of the New Testament appears another false-
hood: " Translated out of the original Greek."
The orginal Greek of the New Testament, it is
claimed, belongs to the first century. The
" original Greek " out of which our version was
translated is less than 500 years old. The Greek
version from which it was translated was made
by Erasmus in 1516. Referring to the materials
employed by Erasmus in the preparation of his
work, the Rev. Alexander Roberts, D. D.', in his
" Companion to the Revised Version of the
English New Testament," a work which the
Committee on Revision delegated him to write
and which was approved, makes the following
admissions: *
" In the Gospels he principally used a cursive
MS. of the fifteenth or sixteenth century."
"In the Acts and Epistles he chiefly followed
Textual Corruptions. 171
a cursive MS. of the thirteenth or fourteenth
century."
" For the Apocalypse he had only one muti-
lated manuscript."
" There are wor ds in the professed original
for which no divine authority can be pleaded,
but which are entirely due to the learning and
imagination of Erasmus."
Little do Christians realize how much of the
Bible is due to the imagination of theologians.
In view of the difficulties that I have men-
lioned, if the translators had earnestly tried to
give us a faithful translation of the Bible their
work would have teemed with imperfections.
But they did not even attempt to give us a faith-
ful translation. We know that in numerous
instances they purposely mistranslated its
words. A hundred examples might be cited.
One will suffice — sheol.
The translators themselves ought to be the
best judges of each other's work. Of Beza's
New Testament, Castalio says: " It would re-
quire a large volume to mark down the multi-
tude of errors which swarm in Beza's transla-
tion." Of Castalio's translation, Beza says: " It
is sacrilegious, wicked, and downright pagan."
Reviewing Luther's Bible, Zwingle writes:
" Thou corruptest, O Luther, the Word of God.
Thou art known to be an open and notorious
perverter of the Holy Scriptures." Luther, in
turn, calls the translators of Zwingle's Bible " a
set of fools, anti-Christs, and impostors."
172 Credibility of the Bible.
Our Authorized Version is certainly as faulty
as any of the above, and its translators have
been the recipients of as severe criticisms as
those quoted. The Committee on Revision,
while compelled to treat it respectfully, declared
against its infallibility in the following words:
" The studied variety adopted by the translators
of 1611 has produced a degree of inconsistency
that cannot be reconciled with the principles of
faithfulness" (Preface to N. V.).
Different Uersions Contain Different Boors.
That the charges that I have made concerning
the corruptions of the text of the Bible are true,
one fact alone amply proves — its many discord-
ant versions and translations. Hundreds have
perished, all of them differing from the original
and differing from each other. A hundred still
exist; no two of them alike. Excepting the
English versions, which are mostly revisions of
the same version, scarcely two of the principal
versions contain the same books.
The received Hebrew contains 39 books (22 as
divided), the Samaritan 6 (some copies but 5) ;
the Septuagint about 50. Of the Christian ver-
sions of the Old Testament, some contain the
Apocryphal books, others do not. The Gothic
and Ethiopic versions exclude a part of the can-
onical books,
The Sjrlac New Testament contains but 22
books; the Italic 24 (some copies 25); the Egyp-
tian 26; the Vulgate 27. The Ethiopic omits a
Textual Corruptions. 173
canonical book and includes an apocryphal
book. The Sinaitic and Alexandrian manu-
scripts each contain 29 books. Each contains
two apocryphal books, but the books are not the
same.
The Roman Catholic and the Greek Catholic
Bibles do not contain the same number of
books. The Roman Catholic and the Protestant
Bibles do not contain the same number; the
Roman Catholic contains 75, the Protestant 66.
Different Uersions of the Same Book Differ.
No two versions of the same book are alike.
The Samaritan Pentateuch does not agree with
the Hebrew Pentateuch ; the Septuagint Penta-
teuch agrees with neither.
The Hebrew and the Septuagint have both
been accepted by Christians as authoritative.
In a single chapter may be found a dozen impor-
tant variations :
Hebrew. — "And Arphaxad lived five and thirty
years and begat Salah" (Gen. xi, 12).
Septuagint. — " And Arphaxad lived a hundred
and thirty-five years and begat Cainan."
Hebrew. — "And Arphaxad lived after he be-
gat Salah four hundred and three years" (13).
Septuagint. — "And Cainan lived a hundred
and thirty years and he begat Salah, and he
lived after the birth of Salah three hundred and
thirty years."
174 Credibility of the Bible.
Hebrew. — "And Salah lived thirty years and
begat Eber" (14).
Septuagint. — "And Salah lived a hundred and
thirty years and begat Eber."
Hebrew. — "And Salah lived after he begat
Eber four hundred and three years" (15).
Septuagint. — "And Salah lived after he begat
Eber three hundred and thirty years."
Hebrew. — "And Eber lived four and thirty
years and begat Peleg" (16).
Septuagint. — "And Eber lived a hundred and
thirty-four years and begat Peleg."
Hebrew. — "And Eber lived after he begat
Peleg four hundred and thirty years" (17).
Septuagint. — "And Eber lived after he begat
Peleg two hundred and seventy years."
Hebrew. — "And Peleg lived thirty years and
begat Keu" (18).
Septuagint. — "And Peleg lived a hundred and
thirty years and begat Ragad."
Hebrew. — "And Reu lived two and thirty vears
and begat Serug" (20).
Septuagint. — "And Ragad lived a hundred
and thirty-two years and begat Serug."
Hebrew. — "And Serug lived thirty years and
begat Nahor" (22).
Septuagint. — "And Serug lived a hundred and
thirty years and begat Nahor."
Hebrew. — " And Nahor lived nine and twenty
years and begot Terah" (24).
Textual Corruptions. 175
Septuagint. — "And Nahor lived a hundred and
seventy-nine years and begat Terah."
Hebrew. — "And Nahor lived after he begat
Terah an hundred and nineteen years" (25).
Septuagint. — "And Nahor lived after he begat
Terah a hundred and twenty-five years."
Hebrew. — "And Terah took Abram his son
and Lot the son of Haran, his son's son, and
Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife"
(31).
Septuagint. — "And Terah took Abram and
Nahor his sons, and Lot the son of Haran his
son's son, and Sarai and Melcha, his daughters-
in-law, the wives of his sons Abram and Na-
hor."
The early Christian versions and manuscripts
contain an immense number of different read-
ings, at least 150,000. Dr. Mill discovered
80,000 different readings in the New Testament
alone.
Origen, writing in the third century, says :
" There is a vast difference betwixt the several
editions of the scripture, happening either
through the carelessness of the transcribers, or
else the forwardness of some who pretend to
correct and adulterate the scripture" (Commen-
tary on St. Matthew).
Modern versions do not agree. The readings
of the Catholic and Protestant versions are quite
unlike; The Protestant versions themselves
contain a great variety of readings. The New
176 Credibility of the Bible.
Version is supposed to be simply a revision of
the Authorized Version. The committee that
prepared it was governed by this rule : " To in-
troduce as few alterations as possible into the
text of the Authorized Version consistent with
faithfulness."
How many alterations were made ? More than
one hundred thousand !
The following are some of the changes made
in the New Testament :
Old Version. — "All scripture is given by in-
spiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,"
etc. (2 Tim. iii, 16).
New Version. — "Every scripture inspired of
God is also profitable for teaching," etc.
Old. — "And Joseph and his mother marveled
at those things which were spoken of him"
(Luke ii, 33).
New. — "And his father and his mother were
marveling at the things which were spoken con-
cerning him."
Old. — " These things were done in Bethabara
beyond Jordan" (John i, 28).
New. — " These things were done in Bethany
beyond Jordan."
Old.— "God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim;
iii, 16).
New. — He '[Christ] who was manifested in the
flesh."
Old. — " No man, when he hath lighted a
candle, putteth it in a secret place" (Luke xi
33).
Textual Corruptions. 177
New. — "No man, when be hath lighted a lamp,
putteth it in a cellar."
Old. — "Because strait is the gate and nar-
row is the way which leadeth unto life" (Matt.
vii, 14).
New. — " For narrow is the gate and strait-
ened the way that leadeth unto life."
Old. — "Our Father, which art in heaven. Hal-
lowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy
will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us
this day our daily bread. And forgive us our
debts, as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not
into temptation, but deliver us from evil : For
thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory,
for ever. Amen" (Matt, vi, 9-13).
New. — " Our father, which art in heaven.
Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give
us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our
debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And
bring us not into temptation, but deliver us
from the evil one."
One would suppose that if Christians pre-
served any part of the Bible free from corrup-
tion it would be the prayer of their Lord, a lit-
tle prayer containing but a few lines. And yet
they have not. The so-called Lord's Prayer
that our mother's taught us is not the Lord's
Prayei. The prayer we learned contains sixty-
six words. The Lord's Prayer contains but fifty-
178 Credibility of the Bible.
five. The revisers have expunged fifteen words,
added some, and altered others.
The last twelve verses of Mark, the first eleven
verses of John viii, and 1 John v, 8, three impor-
tant passages, are all admitted to be forgeries.
Different Copies of tbe Same Uersion Differ.
Different copies of the same version contain
different readings. St. Jerome's version was de-
clared a forgery, because it differed so much
from the Italic version then in use. Jerome an-
ticipated the charge and met the objection in his
preface addressed to Pope Damasus:
"Two things are my comfort under such a re-
proach : First, that 'tis you, the Supreme Pon-
tiff, that have put me upon the task ; and sec-
ondly, that by the confession even of the most
envious, there needs be some falsity where there
is so much variety. If they say that the Latin
copies are to be credited, let them tell me which.
For there are almost as many different copies as
there are manuscripts.'"
Prof. "Wilbur F. Steele, a noted Christian
scholar, relates the following relative to our
own version : " In 1848 there was such confu-
sion in the office of the American Bible Society,
and such impossibility of telling what should be
the reading in many places, that a man was set
to work to bring order out of chaos. He took
four Bibles from as many leading Bible houses
of England, a copy of the American Bible So-
Textual Corruptions. 179
ciety, and a copy* of the original edition of 1611,
all claiming to be the same. These were care-
fully compared throughout ; every variation, no
matter how minute, was noted. The number of
these variations was about 24,000" (Central Chris-
tian Advocate). Twenty -four thousand variations
found in six copies of the same version !
Thus we see that different versions of the
Bible do not contain the same books; different
versions of the same book do not contain the
same readings, while even different copies of the
same versions disagree. Which is the word of
God?
If the Bible had originally consisted of authen-
tic and credible documents its credibility would
have been greatly impaired by these wholesale
corruptions of the transcribers and translators.
But if we had the originals, it is doubtful whether
their credibility would be much greater than these
distorted copies. Enough remains to show the
general character of them, and this is bad. They
consist mostly of historical and biographical
narratives, interwoven with legends, myths, and
fables; crude poetical compositions ; the ravings
of diseased religious minds, called prophecies
and revelations ; and theological dissertations,
no two of which agree in their doctrines. A few
of the books possess genuine merit and de-
serve a place among the literary treasures of the
world, but all of them are fallible.
Remarkable, as coming from a theological pro-
fessor, but fraught with truth and confirmatory
180 Credibility of the Bible.
of the statements made in this chapter, are these
words of Professor Steele :
" Evidently every letter of the English Bible
has not been miraculously watched over. He
who has neither eyes nor conscience may
affirm it, but persons provided with these can
not. If the affirmer hedges by saying he did
not refer to translations but to the ' original,'
we note that (1) translations are the only thing
most people have to go to heaven on ; and (2)
that scholars of truth and conscience find
equally as much fault with the ' original.' "
" There are hundreds, if not thousands, of
places in which the scholar finds conflicting tes-
timony."
In discussing the credibility of the Bible the
question of authenticity will, for the most part,
be waived. With Christians all of its books are
genuine — the writings of those to whom they
are ascribed — and for the sake of argument, as
well as convenience, these ascribed authors will
be recognized.
Two Cosmogonies of Genesis. 181
CHAPTEK XIII.
TWO COSMOGONIES OF GENESIS.
A stereotyped claim of Bible believers is this:
" The account of creation given in Genesis is
in harmony with the accepted teachings of sci-
ence." But which account? In the opening
chapters of Genesis are presented two ancient
poems, written by different authors. The first
comprises the first chapter and the first three
verses of the second chapter; the second com-
prises the remainder of the second chapter.
Each poem contains a cosmogony. But neither
of them agrees with the demonstrated truths of
science. Above all, they do not agree with each
other. The points of disagreement are many,
chief of which are the following:
1.
In the first cosmogony the appellation of
Deity is uniformly " Elohim " (the gods), trans-
lated " God." This term occurs thirty-five
times.
In the second, the appellation of Deity is
uniformly "Jehovah (Yahweh) Elohim," trans-
lated " Lord God." This term occurs eleven
times.
1 82 Credibility of the Bible.
The first belongs to the Priestly code, the
second to the Jehovistic document. They rep-
resent different schools of Jewish thought and
different periods of Jewish history.
2.
In the first, earth is a chaos covered with
water. The waters must be assuaged before
vegetation can appear.
In the second, earth is at first a dry plain.
Vegetation cannot exist because there is no
moisture. " For the Lord God had not caused
it to rain upon the earth " (ii, 5).
3.
In the first, plants are created from the earth
— are a product of the earth. " And the earth
brought forth grass and herb " (i, 12).
In the second, they are created independent
of the earth — are created by God and then
transferred to earth. " The Lord God made the
earth and the heavens, and every plant of the
field before it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew " (ii, 4, 5).
4.
In the first, fowls, fish, and aquatic animals
form one act of creation — land animals and rep-
tiles another; the former being created on the
fifth day, the latter on the sixth (i, 21 -25).
In the second, fowls and land animals are
created at the same time — form one creation act
(ii, 19).
Two Cosmogonies of Genesis. 183
5.
In the first, fowls are created out of the water.
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth
abundantly the moving creature that hath life,
and fowl that may fly above the earth " (i, 20).
In the second, fowls are created out of the
ground, " Out of the ground the Lord God
formed every beast of the field and every fowl
of the air " (ii, 19).
6.
In the first, trees are created before man.
Trees appear on the third dav, while man does
not appear until the sixth day.
In the second, trees are created after man.
"And the Lord God formed man;
planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there
he put the man whom he had formed. And out
of the ground made the Lord God to grow every
tree," etc. (ii, 7, 8.)
7.
In the first, fowls are created before man — are
created od the fifth day, while the creation of
man does not occur until the sixth day.
In the second, fowls are created after man.
" The Lord God formed every beast of the field,
and every fowl of the air; and brought them
unto Adam to see what he would call them "
(ii, 19).
8.
In the first, man is created after the beasts.
God's first work on the sixth day was the crea-
184 Credibility of the Bible.
tiou of beasts, his last work was the creation of
man (i, 24-31).
In the second, man is created before the
beasts. God makes man before he plants the
garden of Eden, while beasts are not made until
after the garden is planted (ii, 7-19).
9.
In the first, man and woman are created at
the same time. " So God created man in his
own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them " (i, 27).
In the second, woman is created after man.
The writer supposes a considerable period of
time to have elapsed between the creation of man
and the creation of woman. God creates man;
then he plants a garden and places the man
there to tend it; next he makes the animals and
birds and brings them to Adam to name; finally
he concludes that Adam needs a helpmeet, and
taking a rib from his body, creates woman.
10.
The first cosmogony comprises eight distinct
creations: 1. Light. 2. The firmament. 3. Dry-
land. 4. Vegetation. 5. Sun, moon, and stars.
G Fish and fowls. 7. Land animals. 8. Man.
The second comprises four creations: 1. Man
(Adam). 2. Trees. 3. Animals. 4. Woman
(Eve).
11.
In the first, the heavens and the earth are
created in six literal days.
Two Cosmogonies of Genesis. 185
In the second, no mention is made of this six
days' creation. On the contrary, the writer
simply refers to "the day that the Lord God
made the earth and the heavens " (ii, 4).
12.
In the first, God, from his throne in heaven,
speaks earth's creation into being. " God said,
Let the earth bring forth, . . . and it was
so."
In the second, God comes down on earth,
plants a garden, molds man out of clay, breathes
in his nostrils, makes woman out of a rib, makes
birds and animals as a child makes mud pies,
and brings them to Adam to see what he will
call them.
13.
In the first, man at the creation is given both
fruit and herbs to subsist upon. " Behold I
have given you every herb bearing seed, . . .
and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree
yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat"
(i, 29).
In the second, he is given fruit alone for food.
Not until after he sins and the curse is pro-
nounced does God say, " Thou shalt eat the
herb of the field" (iii, 18). According to this
writer the use of herbs and grain for food was
a consequence of man's fall.
14.
In the first, man may partake of the fruit of
$11 the trees. " Every tree in- the which is the
1 86 Credibility of the Bible.
fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be
for meat" (i, 29.
In the second, he is not permitted to partake
of the fruit of all the trees. " Ye shall not eat
of every tree of the garden " (iii, 1). " Of the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shalt not eat of it " (ii, 17).
15.
In the first, " God made the firmament, and
divided the waters which were under the fir-
mament from the waters which were above the
firmament" (i, 7). When moisture was needed
" the windows of heaven were opened " and
water discharged from the reservoir above.
When enough was discharged " the windows of
heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven
was restrained" (viii, 2).
In the second, when moisture was needed,
"There went up a mist from the earth, and
watered the whole face of the ground " (ii, 6).
16:
In the first, man is given dominion over all
the earth. "Let them have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
over the cattle, and over all the earth " (i, 26).
In the second, his dominion is confined to a
garden. "And the Lord God took the man,
and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it
and keep it" (ii, 15).
17.
Both cosmogonies are theological rather than
Two Cosmogonies of Genesis. 187
scientific. The real purpose of the first, in its
present form at least, is not so much to explain
the creation of the universe as to inculcate a
belief in the divine institution of the Sabbath.
It belongs to the Priestly code, and one of the
chief pillars of priestcraft is the Sabbath.
The second contains no recognition of the
Sabbath. The chief purpose of this account of
the creation, if we include the third chapter,
which is really a continuation of it, is to estab-
lish the doctrine of the Fall of Man.
18.
According to the first the Creator is an opti-
mist. He views all his works and declares them
"good."
According to the second the Creator is a pes-
simist. He sees in his works both " good and
evil;" the good continuing to diminish, and the
evil continuing to increase.
To establish the credibility and divine origin
of Genesis it is necessary not merely to har-
monize its theories with science, but to recon-
cile its statements with each other. The latter
is as impossible as the former. Dean Stanley,
in his Memorial Sermon on Sir Charles Lyell at
Westminster Abbey, made this frank admission:
" It is now clear to diligent students of the
Bible that the first and second chapters of Gen-
esis contain two narratives of the creation, side
by side, differing from each other in most every
particular of time, place, and order."
Credibility of the Bible.
CHAPTER XIV.
THE PATRIARCHAL AGE.
In disproof of the credibility of the so-called
patriarchal history of the Pentateuch, a few of
its many incredible and contradictory state-
ments will be presented here.
1.
The following are the recorded ages of the
patriarchs : Adam, 930 years (Gen. v, 5); Seth,
912 (8); Enos, 905 (11). Cainan, 910 (14); Maha-
laleel, 895 (17); Jared, 962 (20); Enoch, 365 (23)
Methuselah, 969 (27); Lamech, 777 (31) ; Noah,
950 (ix, 29); Shem, 600 (xi, 10, 11); Arphaxad,
438 (12,13); Cainan, 460 (omitted in Hebrew
Version, but given in S^ptuagint); Salah, 433
(14, 15); Eber,~464 (16, 17), Peleg, 239 (18, 19);
lieu, 239 (20, 21); Serug, 230, (22, 23); Nahor,
148 (24, 25); Terah, 205 (32); Abraham, 175,
(xxv, 7); Isaac, 180 (xxxv. 28); Jacob, 147 (xlvii,
28); Joseph, 110 (1,26).
Eleven generations of these patriarchs (twelve
if Cainan be included), Noah, Shem, Arphaxad,
(Cainan), Selah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor,
Terah, and Abraham, were all living at the same
time.
The Patriarchal Age. 189
Noah died in the year 2006 a.m. When Adam
died Noah's father was 56 years old.
Abraham was the twentieth generation from
Adam. When Abraham was 56 years old, Noah,
whose father was 56 years old when Adam died,
was still living.
When Noah died, his great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great grandson, Abra-
ham, was an old man.
Isaac was the eleventh generation from Shem.
When Shem died Isaac was 110 years old.
Jacob was the thirteenth generation from
Noah. When Noah's eldest son died Jacob was
50 years old.
The combined ages of seven patriarchs equal
a sum five hundred years greater than the time
that has elapsed from the creation of the world
to the present time.
2.
"Every one that findeth me shall slay me"
(Gen. iv, 14).
" And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest
any finding him should kill him " (15).
"And Cain went out from the presence of the
Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod" (16).
" And Cain knew his wife: and she conceived,
and bare Enoch ; and he [Cain] builded a city "
(17).
Cain, believing that he had a plurality of
lives, and fearing that every one who found him
would take one, appealed to God, who set a
mark on him so that his father and mother, the
190 Credibility of the Bible.
only persons in existence besides himself, would
know him. Then going out from the presence
of Omnipresence, he went to a country where
nobody lived, married a wife, and built a city
with a population of three inhabitants.
" And Methuselah lived a hundred eighty and
seven years, and begat Lamech: and Methuselah
lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred
eighty and two years. . . . And all the days
of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and
nine years " (Gen. v, 25-27).
" And Lamech lived a hundred eighty and
two years, and begat a son : and he called his
name Noah " (28, 29).
" In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in
the second month, the seventeenth day of the
month, the same day were all the fountains of
the great deep broken up, and the windows of
heaven were opened " (vii, 11).
"And it came to pass in the six hundredth
and first year, in the first month, the first day
of the month, the waters were dried up from
off the earth" (viii, 13).
" And Noah lived after the flood three hun-
dred and fifty years. And all the days of Noah
were nine hundred and fifty years " (ix, 28, 29).
"When the Flood began Noah was 599 years
(one month and seventeen days) old; when it
ended he was exactly 600 years old.
It is commonly supposed that Methuselah
The Patriarchal Age. 191
died before the Flood. If the foregoing pas-
sages be correct, he did not, as will be shown
by the following :
1. From the birth of Lamech to the beginning
of the Flood was 182 years -{-599 =781 years; and
from the birth of Lamech to the end of the
Flood was 182 years-f-600 years =782 years. If
Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech 782
years, he lived until the end of the Flood.
2. From the birth of Methuselah to the be-
ginning of the Flood was 187 years+182 years
+599 years = 968 years. From the birth of
Methuselah to the end of the Flood was 187
years-|-182 years+600 years=969 years. At the
commencement of the Flood he was but 968
vears old, and not until the end of it was he
969.
3. From the birth of Methuselah to the death
of Noah was 187 years+182 years-J-950 years =
1319 years. As Noah died 350 years after the
Flood, from the birth of Methuselah to the end
of the Flood was 1319 years— 350 years=969
years. If he lived 96*J years, he lived until the
end of the Flood.
As Methuselah was not one of the eight per-
sons that went into the ark, where was he dur-
ing the Flood?
According to the Septuagint Genesis, the
Flood occurred fourteen years before the death
of Methuselah.
4.
" Of every living thing of all flesh, two of every
192 Credibility of the Bible.
sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them
alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after
their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth
after his kind; two of every sort shall come unto
thee " (Gen. vi, 19, 20).
" Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee
by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts
that are not clean by two, the male and his
female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the
male and the female " (vii, 2, 3).
Referring to the above, the celebrated Jewish
commentator, Dr. Kalisch, says : " Noah was
commanded to take into the ark seven pairs of
all clean, and one pair of all unclean, animals,
whereas he had before been ordered to take on:
pair of every species, no distinction whatever
between clean and unclean animals having been
made. . . . We do not hesitate to acknowl-
edge here the manifest contradiction."
5.
And Noah was five hundred years old; and
Noah begat Shem " (v, 32).
*' And Noah was six hundred years old when
the flood of waters was upon the earth " (vii, 6).
" Shem was a hundred years old, and he begat
Arphaxad two years after the flood " (xi, 10).
It Noah was rive hundred years old when he
begat Shem, and six hundred years old at the
time oi the Flood, Shem was one hundred years
old at the time of the Flood. If Shem begat Ar-
phaxad two years after the Flood, he was one
The Patriarchal Age. 193
hundred and two years old when he begat Ar-
phaxad.
6.
"And Arphaxad begat Salah " (Gen. x, 24).
"And Arphaxad begat Shelah " (1 Chron. i,
18).
"And Arphaxad begat Cainan, and Cainan
begat Salah" (Genesis, Sept. Ver.).
" Which was the son of Sala, which was the
son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad"
(Luke iii, 35, 36).
According to the Hebrew Genesis and Chron-
icles, Arphaxad was the father of Salah; accord-
ing to the Septuagint Genesis and Luke, Cainan
was the father, and Arphaxad the grandfather
of Salah.
7.
" The woman [Sarah] was taken into Phara-
oh's house" (Gen. xii, 15).
" And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What
is this that thou hast done unto me ?" (18).
" And Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took
Sarah " (xx, 2).
" Then Abimelech called unto Abraham, and
said unto him, What hast thou done unto us?"
(9).
It may be claimed that both Pharaoh and
Abimelech took Sarah. But it is evident that
these are both legends of the same event, or,
rather, different and conflicting forms of the
same legend. The first belongs to the Jehovist,
the second to the Elohist.
194 Credibility of the Bible.
8.
" And Abram was seventy and five years old
when he departed out of Haran. . . . And
into the land of Canaan they came " (Gen. xii,4,
5).
" And Terah lived seventy years and begat
Abram" (xi, 26).
" And the days of Terah were two hundred
and five years " (32).
" When his father was dead, he [Abram] re-
moved him into this land, wherein ye now
dwell " (Acts vii, 4).
If Abram did not go to Canaan until after the
death of his father, he did not go until he was
135 years old, 60 years older than stated in the
first account.
9.
" And Abram was four score and six years old
when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram" (Gen. xvi,
16).
" And Abraham was a hundred years old
when his son Isaac was born unto him" (xxi, 5).
"And the child [Isaac] grew, and was weaned"
(8).
" And Abraham rose up early in the morning,
and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave
it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and
the child [Ishmael], and seut her away : and
she departed, and wandered in the wilderness
of Beersheba. And the water was spent in the
bottle, and she cast the child under one of the
shrubs " (14, 15).
The Patriarchal Age. 195
When Isaac was weaned, and Hagar was sent
into the wilderness, Ishmael, who was about six-
teen years old, is represented as a babe in his
mother's arms.
10.
" And Esau was forty years old when he took
to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite,
and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hit-
tite " (Gen. xxvi, 34).
"Esau took his wives of the daughters of
Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hit
tite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the
daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; and Bashemath
Ishmael's daughter" (xxxvi, 2, 3).
Did Esau marry two wives, according to the
first account, or three, according to the second ?
Was his first wife Judith, the daughter of Beeri,
or Adah, the daughter of Elon ? Was Bashe-
math the daughter of Elon the Hittite, or was
she the daughter of his uncle Ishmael?
11.
" I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and
unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty : but
by my name Jehovah was I not known to them"
(Ex. vi, 3).
" I [Abraham] have lifted up mine hand unto
the Lord [Jehovah] the most high God " (Gen.
xiv, 22).
" He [Isaac] said, For now the Lord {Jeho-
vah] hath made room for us" (xxvi, 22).
"He [Jacob] said, Surely the Lord {Jehovah]
is in this place " (xxviii, 16).
196 Credibility of the Bible.
According to the writer in Exodus, Jehovah
did not become the national God of Israel until
after the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
According to the writer in Genesis, he was
known to each of these patriarchs.
12.
" All the souls of the house of Jacob, which
came into Egypt, were three score and ten "
(xlvi, 27).
"Then sent Joseph, and called his father
Jacob to him, and all his kindred, three score
and fifteen souls " (Acts vii, 14).
13.
" And the Midianites sold him [Joseph] into
Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's,
and captain of the guard " (Gen. xxxvii, 36).
"And Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, cap-
tain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him
[Joseph] of the hands of the Ishmaelites "
(xxxix, 1).
14.
" Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: the sons
of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon,
and Levi," etc. (Gen. xxxv, 22, 23).
"And these are the names of the sons of Levi,
according to their generations: Gershon, and
Kohath " etc. (Ex. vi, 16).
"And the sons of Kohath; Amram," etc. (18).
" And Amram took him Jochebed his father's
sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and
Moses" (20).
The Patriarchal Age. 197
" And the children of Israel journeyed from
Ramases to Succoth, about six hundred thou-
sand on foot that were men, beside children "
(Ex. xii, 37.)
Levi was the son of Jacob, Kohath was the
son of Levi, Amram was the son of Kohath, and
Moses was the son of Amram. Moses was the
fourth generation from Jacob. In the time of
Moses the adult male population of Israel num-
bered 600,000, representing a total population o
about 3,000,000. Thus in four generations the
progeny of Jacob increased from twelve persons
to three millions.
15.
Judah, Jacob's fourth son, married and had
three sons — Er, Onan, and Shelah. Er grew to
manhood, married Tamar, and died. Onan then
married his widow, and died also. Shelah, who
was much younger than Onan, grew to manhood
and refused to marry his brother's widow.
Tamar then had two sons, Pharez and Zarah, by
Judah himself (Gen. xxxviii). Pharez grew to
manhood, married, and had two sous, Hezron
and Hamil (xlvi, 12), before Jacob and his fam-
ily went to Egypt. When they went to Egypt,
Judah was but forty-two years old.
198 Credibility of the Bible.
CHAPTER XV.
THE JEWISH KINGS.
Much of the Bible is devoted to events which
are narrated but once. These records may be
true, or they may be false. We may question
their truthfulness, but it is difficult to demon-
strate their falsity. Had all the events of the
Bible been recorded lmt once its credibility
could the more easily be maintained. But
wherever two or more accounts of the same
events occur, such as in Kings and Chronicles,
where two histories of the Jewish Kings are
given, and in the Four Gospels, where four biog-
raphies of Jesus are given, we find them so filled
with discrepancies as to make them unworthy
of credit.
The following are some of the contradictory
statements that occur in the books pertaining to
the Jewish kings :
1
Was David the seventh or the eighth son of
Jesse?
" And Jesse begat his first-born Eliab, and
Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third,
The Jewish Kings. 199
Nethaniel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the
sixth, David the seventh" (1 Chron. ii, 13-15).
" Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass
before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse,
The Lord hath not chosen these. And Samuel
said unto Jesse, are here all thy children ? And
he said, There remaineth yet the youngest
[David]" (1 Sam. xvi, 10, 11).
Who gave David the shewbread to eat when
he was a fugitive from Saul ?
" Then came David to Nob to Abimelech the
[High] priest ... So the priest gave him
hallowed bread : for there was no bread there
but the shewbread " (1 Sam. xxi, 1, 6).
" And he [Jesus] said unto them, Have ye
never read what David did when he was ahun-
gered, he, and they that were with him ? How
he went into the house of God in the days of
Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shew-
bread?" (Mark ii, 25, 26).
3
What relation did the High Priests Abimelech
and Abiathar bear to each other ?
" Abiathar the son of Abimelech " (1 Sam.
xxiii, 6).
"Abimelech the son of Abiathar" (2 Sam.
viii, 17).
4
What sons were born to David in Jerusalem ?
" And these be the names of those that were
200 Credibility of the Bible.
born unto him in Jerusalem : Shammuah, and
Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, Ibhar abo,
and Elishua, and Nepheg, and Japhia, and Eli-
shama, and Eliada, and Eliphalet " (2 Sam. v,
14-16).
" Now these are the names of his children
which he had in Jerusalem : Shammua, and
Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon, and Ibhar, and
Elishua, and Elpalet, and Nogah, and Nepheg
and Japhia, and Elishama, and Beeliada, and
Eliphalet" (1 Chron. xiv, 4-7).
5
What was the name of David's tenth son
(twelfth according to Chronicles) ?
Eliada (2 Sam. v, 16).
Beeliada (1 Chron. xiv, 7).
"Eliada" means " God knows ;" " Beeliada "
means "Baal knows." Did David name his son
for the God of the Jews, or for the God of the
heathen ?
6
How many horsemen did David take from
Hadadezer ?
"David took from him a thousand chariots,
and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thou-
sand footmen" (2 Sam. viii, 4).
" David took from him a thousand chariots,
and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thou-
sand footmen" (1 Chron. xviii, 4).
7
"Was it forty thousand horsemen or forty
The Jewish Kings. 201
thousand footmen that David slew of the Syri-
ans?
" David slew the men of seven hundred chari-
ots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen"
(2 Sam. x, 18).
" David slew of the Syrians seven thousand
men which fought in chariots and forty thou-
sand footmen" (1 Chron. xix, 18).
8
Who moved David to number the people, the
Lord or Satan ?
" The anger of the Lord was kindled against
Israel, and he moved David against them to say.
Go, number Israel and Judah " (2 Sam. xxiv,
1).
"And Satan stood up against Israel, and pro-
voked David to number Israel " (1 Chron.
xxi, 1).
9
How many warriors had Israel and Judah ?
" And there were in Israel eight hundred
thousand [800,000] valiant men that drew the
sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred
thousand [500,000] men" (2 Sam. xxiv, 9).
" And all they of Israel were a thousand thou-
sand and a hundred thousand [1,100,000] men
that drew sword; and Judah was four hundred
three score and ten thousand [470,000] men " (1
Chron. xxi, 5).
10
Was David to suffer three or seven years of
famine ?
202 Credibility of the Bible.
" So Gad came to David and said unto hirn :
Thus saith the Lord, choose thee either three
years of famine, or three months to be destroyed
before thy foes" (1 Chron. xxi, 11, 12).
" So Gad came to David and told him, and
said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come
unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three
months before thine enemies?" (2 Sam. xxiv, 13).
11
What did David pay for the threshing floor ?
" And Gad came that day to David, and said
unto him, Go up, rear an altar unto the Lord
in the threshing floor of Araunah [Oman] the
Jebusite. ... So David bought the thresh-
ing-floor aud the oxen for fifty shekels of silver
[$26.50]" (2 Sam. xxiv, 18, 24).
" Then the angel of the Lord commanded Gad
to say to David, that David should go up, and
set up an altar unto the Lord in the threshing-
floor of Oman the Jebusite. ... So David
gave to Oman for the place six hundred shekels
of gold [$3,414]" (1 Chron. xxi, 18, 25).
12
How many overseers did Solomon have while
building the Temple ?
" And Solomon had three score and ten thou-
sand that bare burdens, and four score thousand
hewers in the mountains ; besides the chief of
Solomon's officers which were over the work,
three thousand and three hundred" (1 Kings, v,
15, 16)-
"And he set three score and ten thousand of
The Jewish Kings. 203
them to be bearers of burdens and four score
thousand to be hewers in the mountains, and
three thousand and six hundred overseers to se
the people awork " (2 Chron. ii, 18).
13
What was the height of the pillars before the
house ?
"For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen
cubits high apiece. . . . And he set up the
right pillar, and called the name thereof Jachin:
and he set up the left pillar, and called the name
thereof Boaz " (1 Kings vii, 15, 21).
" Also he made before the house two pillars
of thirty and five cubits high, . . . and
called the name of that on the right hand
Jachin, and the name of that on the left Boaz'
(2 Chron. iii, 15, 17).
14
What was the capacity of the molten sea ?
" And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from
the one brim to the other. . . . And it was
a hand-breadth thick, and the brim thereof
was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flow-
ers of lilies : it contained two thousand baths "
(1 Kings vii, 23, 26).
"Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits
from brim to brim And the thick-
ness of it was a handbreadth, and the brim of it
like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers
of lilies; and it received and held three thousand
baths " (2 Chron. iv, 2, 5).-
204 Credibility of the Bible.
15
How many overseers did Solomon have over
his other works ?
"These were the chief of the officers that were
over Solomon's work, five hundred and fifty,
which bare rule over the people that wrought
in the work " (1 Kings ix, 23).
" And these were the chief of King Solomon's
officers, even tivo hundred and fifty, that bare
rule over the people " (2 Chron. viii, 10).
16
How many stalls did Solomon have for his
horses ?
" And Solomon had four thousand stalls for
horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horse-
men " (2 Chron. ix, 25).
" And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of
horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand
horsemen " (1 Kings iv, 26).
17
How much gold did they bring Solomon from
Ophir ?
" And they came to Ophir, and fetched from
thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and
brought it to King Solomon " (1 Kings ix, 28).
" And they went with the servants of Solomon
to Ophir, and took thence four hundred and fifty
talents of gold, and brought them to King Sol-
omon " (2 Chron. viii, 18).
18
Who was the first to die, Jeroboam or Abijah?
The Jewish Kings. 205
"Neither did Jeroboam recover strength again
in the days of Abijah: and the Lord struck him,
and he died. But Abijah waxed mighty" (2
Chron. xiii, 20, 21).
" And the days which Jeroboam reigned were
two and twenty years " (1 Kings xiv, 20).
" And Abijam [Abijah] slept with his fathers;
and they buried him in the city of David : and
Asa his son reigned in his stead. And in the
twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel
reigned Asa over Judah " (1 Kings xv, 8, 9).
Instead of Abijah waxing mighty after Jero-
boam's death, Jeroboam reigned two years
after Abijah's death.
19
Who was the mother of Abijah ?
" He [Rehoboam] took Maachah the daughter
of Absalom; which bare him Abijah " (2 Chron.
xi, 20):
" His [Abijah's] mother's name also was
Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah " (2
Chron. xiii, 2).
20
Was Asa the son or the grandson of Maachah?
"Forty and one years reigned he [Asa] in Je-
rusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah,
the daughter of Abishalom " (1 Kings xv, 10).
"Three years reigned he [Abijam] in Jeru-
salem. And his mother's name was Maachah
the daughter of Abishalom. . . . And Asa
his son reigned in his stead " (1 Kings xv, 2, 8).
206 Credibility of the Bible.
21
How long did Omri reign ?
" In the thirty and first year of Asa king of
Judah began Omri to reign over Israel twelve
years. ... So Omri slept with his fathers,
and was buried in Samaria : and Ahab his son
reigned in his stead. And in the thirty and
eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab
the son of Omri to reign " (1 Kings xvi, 23, 28,
29).
From the thirty-first to the thirty-eighth year
of Asa's reign Omri is said to have reigned
twelve years.
22
When did Baasha die ?
" Baasha slept with his fathers, and was
buried in Tirzah : and Elah his son reigned in
his stead. ... In the twenty and sixth year
of Asa king of Judah began Elah the son of Ba-
asha to reign " (1 Kings xvi, 6, 8).
" In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of
Asa, Baasha king of Israel came up against
Judah " (2 Chron. xvi, 1).
23
When did Jehoram king of Israel and Jehoram
king of Judah begin to reign ?
"And Jehoram [of Israel] reigned in his stead
in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehosh-
aphat king of Judah " (2 Kings i, 17).
"And in the fifth year of Joram [Jehoram of
Israel], . . . Jehoram the son of Jehosh-
The Jewish Kings. 207
aphat king of Judah began to reign" (2 Kings
viii, 16).
According to the first account, Jehoram of
Israel began to reign in the second year of Je-
horam of Judah; according to the second, Je-
horam of Judah began to reign in the fifth year
of Jehoram of Israel.
24
When did Ahaziah begin to reign ?
" In the eleventh year of Joram the son of
Ahab began Ahaziah to reign over Judah " (2
Kings ix, 29).
" In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab
king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram
king of Judah begin to reign" (2 Kings viii, 25)-
25
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
" Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when
he began to reign; and he reigned one year in
Jerusalem " (2 Kings viii, 26).
" Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when
he began to reign; and he reigned one year in
Jerusalem " (2 Chron. xxii, 2).
26
How long did Jotham reign ?
"In the second year of Pekah. . . . began
Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah to reign.
Five and twenty years old was he when he began
to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jeru-
salem" (2 Kings xv, 32, 33 .
" And Hoshea. . . . slew him [Pekah] and
208 Credibility of the Bible.
reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of
Jotham the son of Uzziah " (2 Kings xv, 30).
27
Who was Josiah's successor ?
" Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz
the son of Josiah, and made him king in his
father's stead " (2 Chron. xxxvi, 1).
"For thus saith the Lord touching Shallum
the son of Josiah king of Judah which reigned
instead of Josiah his father" (Jer. xxii, 11).
28
How old was Jehoiachin when he began to
reign ?
"Jehoiachin was eight years old when he be-
gan to reign " (2 Chron. xxxvi, 9).
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he
began to reign " (2 Kings xxiv, 8),
29
When did Evil-Merodach release Jehoiachin
from prison ?
"In the twelfth month, on the seven and
twentieth day of the month " (2 Kings xxv, 27).
" In the twelfth month, in the five and twen-
tieth day of the month " (Jer. lii, 31).
30
What relation did Zedekiah, the last of the
Jewish kings, bear to Jehoiachin, his predeces-
sor?
1. He was his son. " Jechoniah [Jehoiachin]
his son, Zedekiah his son " (1 Chron. iii, 16).
2. He was his brother. "Nebuchadnezzar
The Jewish Kings. 209
sent and brought him [Jehoiachin] to Babylon,
. . . and made Zedekiah his brother king of
Judah" (2 Chron. xxxvi, 10).
3. He was his uncle. " The king of Babylon
made Mattaniah his [Jehoiachin's] father's bro-
ther king in his stead and changed his name to
Zedekiah " (2 Kings xxiv, 17).
" That Zedekiah, who in 1 Chron. iii, 16, is
called ' his son,' is the same as Zedekiah his
uncle (called ' his brother,' 2 Chron. xxxvi, 10),
who was his [Jehoiachin's] successor on the
throne seems certain " (Smith's Bible Diction-
ary, Art. Jehoiachin).
2io Credibility of the Bible.
CHAPTER XIV.
WHEN DID JEHOSHAPHAT DIE?
At the end of Solomon's reign the Jewish na-
tion was divided into two kingdoms. Two
tribes acknowledged the authority of Solomon's
successor, Rehoboam. This was called the
kingdom of Judah, of which Jerusalem was the
capital. Ten tribes revolted and made Jeroboam
king. This formed the kingdom of Israel, of
which Samaria was the capital. The following
is a brief summary of the reigns of the kings of
the two kingdoms from the partition of the
empire to the conquest of Israel by the Assyri-
ans:
Kingdom of 3udal).
" And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned
in Judah . . . and he reigned seventeen
years " (1 Kings xiv, 21).
"And Rehoboam slept with his fathers . .
and Abijam his son reigned in his stead" (1
Kings xiv, 31). "Three years reigned he"
(xv, 2).
"And Abijam slept with his fathers . . .
and Asa his son reigned in his stead " (1 Kings
xv, 8). "Forty and one years reigned he " (10).
When Did Jehoshaphat Die? 211
" And Asa slept with his fathers . . . and
Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his stead " (1
Kings xv, 24). " And he reigned twenty and
five years in Jerusalem " (xxii, 42).
"And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers
. . . and Jehoram his son reigned in his
stead" (1 Kings xxii, 50). "And he reigned
eight years " (2 Kings viii, 17).
"And Jorani [Jehoram] slept with his fathers
. . . and Ahaziah reigned in his stead " (2
Kings viii, 24). "And he reigned one year"
(26).
"And he [Ahaziah] fled to Megiddo and died
there" (2 Kings xi, 17). "And when Athaliah
the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was
dead she arose and destroyed all the seed royal.
But Jehosheba took Joash the son of Ahaziah
. . . and he was with her [his nurse] hid in
the house of the Lord six years. And Athaliah
did reign over the land " (xi, 1-3).
" They slew Athaliah " (2 Kings xi, 20). " And
they brought down the king [Joash] from the
house of the Lord. . . . And he sat on the
throne of the kings" (19). "Forty years reigned
he in Jerusalem" (xii, 1).
"His servants smote him [Joash] and he died,
. . . and Amaziah his son reigned in his
stead" (2 Kings xii, 21) — "and reigned twenty
and nine years " (xiv, 2).
"They made a conspiracy against him [Ama-
ziah] . * . and slew him " (2 Kings xiv, 19).
"And all the people of Judah took Azariah
212 Credibility of the Bible.
. . . and made him king instead of bis father,
Amaziah " (21). "And he reigned two and fifty
years " (xv, 2).
"So Azariah slept with his fathers . . .
and Jotham his son reigned in his stead " (2
Kings xv, 7). " And he reigned sixteen years "
(33).
" And Jotham slept with his fathers . . .
and haz Ahis son reigned in his stead " (2 Kings
xv, 38) — "and reigned sixteen years" (xvi, 5J).
"And Ahaz slept with his fathers . . . and
Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead " [2 Kings
xvi, 10) "In the sixth year of Hezekiah . . .
Samaria was taken " (xviii, 10).
From the division of the empire, then, to the
conquest of Israel by the Assyrians, the reigns
of Judah's kings were as follows:
Rehoboam., seventeen years,
Abijam, three "
Asa forty-one "
Jehoshaphat, twenty-five "
Joram, eight "
Ahaziah, one "
Athaliah, six "
Joash, forty "
Amaziah, twenty-nine "
Azariah, fifty-two "
Jotham, sixteen "
Ahaz, sixteen "
Hezekiah, six "
Kingdom of Tsrael.
" They . . . made him [Jeroboam] king
over all Israel" (1 Kings xii, 20). "And the
When Did Jehoshaphat Die? 213
days which Jeroboam reigned were two and
twenty years " (xiv, 20).
"And he [Jeroboam] slept with his fathers
and Nadab his son reigned in his stead" (1
Kings xiv, 20) — " and reigned over Israel two
years " (xv, 25).
"And Baasha smote him Nadab] . . .
and reigned in his stead " (1 Kings xv, 27, 28)
— " twenty and four years " (33).
" So Baasha slept with his fathers . . .
and Elah his son reigned in his stead " (1 Kings
xvi, 6) — " two years " (8).
"Zimri went in and smote him, and killed
him [Elah] . . . and reigned in his stead"
(1 Kings xvi, 10) — " seven days " (15)
" Wherefore all Israel made Omri . . . king
over Israel " (1 Kings xvi, 16) — " to reign over
Israel twelve years " (23).
" So Omri slept with his fathers . . . and
Ahab his son reigned in his stead" (1 Kings
xvi, 28) — " twenty and two years " (29).
" So Ahab slept with his fathers and Ahaziah
his son reigned in his stead " (1 Kings xxii, 4.0)
— " and reigned two years over Israel " (51).
" So he [Ahaziah] died . . . and Jehoram
his brother] reigned in his stead" (2 Kings i,
17) — " and reigned twelve years " (iii, 1)
"I have anointed thee [Jehu] king . . .
over Israel " (2 Kings ix, 6). " And Jehu . .
smote Jehoram" (24). "And the time that
Jehu reigned over Israel in Samaria was twenty
and eight years" (x, 36).
214 Credibility of the Bible.
" And Jehu slept with his fathers . . . and
Jehoahaz his son reigned in his stead " (2 Kings
x, 35) — " and reigned seventeen years " (xiii, 1).
" And Jehoahaz slept with his fathers . . .
and Joash his son reigned in his stead " (2 Kings
xiii, 9) — " and reigned sixteen years" (10).
"And Joash slept with his fathers and r o-
boam sat upon his throne " (2 Kings xiii, 13) —
" and reigned forty and one years " (xiv, 23).
" And Jeroboam slept with his fathers . . .
and Zachariah his son reigned in his stead " (2
Kings xiv, 29)— "six months" (xv, 8).
"And Shallum . . . slew him [Zachariah]
and reigned in his stead " (2 Kings xv, 10) — " a
full month " (13).
"Menahem . . . slew him [Shallum] and
reigned in his stead" (2 Kings xv, 14) — "and
reigned ten years " (27).
" And Menahem slept with his fathers and
Pekahiah his son reigned in his stead " (2 Kings
xv, 22) — " and reigned two years " (23).
" Pekah . . . killed him [Pekahiah] and
reigned in his room" (2 Kings xv, 25) — "and
reigned twenty years" (7).
" And Hoshea . . . slew him [Pekab] and
reigned in his stead " (2 Kings xv, 30) — " nine
years" (xvii, 1). "In the ninth year of Hoshea
the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried
Israel away into Assyria " (6).
From the division of the empire to the con-
quest of Israel the reigns of Israel's kings, omit-
ting Zimri's brief reign of seven days and calling
When Did Jehoshaphat Die? 215
the combined reigns of Zachariah and Shal-
lum one year, as computed by chronologists,
were as follows:
Jeroboam,
twenty-two
years,
Nadab,
two
<<
Baasha,
twenty-four
«
Elah,
two
u
Omri,
twelve
u
Ahab,
twenty-two
it
Akaziah,
two
«(
Jehoram,
twelve
<«
Jehu,
twenty-eight
(<
Jehoahaz,
seventeen
(«
Joash,
sixteen
<«
Jeroboam II.,
forty-one
u
Zachariah and Shallum, one
u
Menahem,
ten
u
Pekahiah,
two
M
Pekah,
twenty
(I
Hoshea,
nine
<(
The foregoing epitome of Jewish history,
gleaned from 1 and 2 Kings, is presented in order
that the reader may the more readily under-
stand the following solutions (based upon state-
ments that appear in these books) to the ques-
tion that forms the topic of this chapter — When
did Jehoshaphat die ?
Jehoshaphat is represented as one of Ju-
dah's best and greatest kings. He did " that
which was right in the eyes of the Lord." "The
Lord was with Jehoshaphat." "And Jehosha-
phat waxed great." "And he had riches and
honor in abundance." He died at the age of
sixty, after a reign of twenty-five years. Aha-
216 Credibility of the Bible.
ziab, king of Israel, is represented as a very
wicked king. " He did evil in the sight of the
Lord." " For he served Baal, and worshiped
him, and provoked to anger the Lord." Elijah
prophesied his early death, which came after a
brief reign of two years. The last chapter of
the first book of Kings chronicles the reign and
death of Judah's king, Jehoshaphat; the first
chapter of the second book of Kings records
the reign and death of Israel's king, Ahaziah.
Now when did Jehoshaphat die ? Did he die
before or after Ahaziah died?
1.
" And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king
of Israel reigned Asa over Judah" (1 Kings xv,
9).
As Jeroboam reigned twenty-two years, he
reigned two years after Asa became king. From
the commencement of Asa's reign, then, to the
death of Ahaziah, the reigns of Israel's kings
were as follows : Jeroboam 2 years, Nadab 2
years, Baasha, 24 years, Elah 2 years, Omri 12
years, Ahab 22 years, and Ahaziah 2 years. 2
years+2 years+24 years+2 years +12 years+22
years+2 years=66 years.
As Asa reigned forty-one years and Jehosh-
aphat reigned twenty-five years, from the com-
mencement of Asa's reign to the death of Jehosh-
aphat was 41 years +25 years = 66 years.
If from the commencement of Asa's reign to
the death of Ahaziah was sixty-six years, and
from the commencement of Asa's reign to the
When Did Jehoshaphat Die? 217
death of Jehoshaphat was sixty-six years, Je-
hoshaphat therefore died in the same year that
Ahaziah died.
2.
" Now in the eighteenth year of King Jero-
boam the son of Nebat reigned Abijam over
Judah" (1 Kings xv, 1).
As Jeroboam reigned 22 years, he reigned four
years after the beginning of Abijam's reign.
From the beginning of Abijam's reign, then, to
the death of Ahaziah, the reigns of Israel's
kings were : Jeroboam 4 years, Nadab 2 years,
Baasha 24 years, Elah 2 years, Omri 12 years,
Ahab 22 years, and Ahaziah 2 years. 4 years +
2 years+24 years+2 years+12 years+22 years
+2 years = 68 years.
From the beginning of Abijam's reign to the
death of Jehoshaphat the reigns of Judah's
kings were : Abijam 3 years, Asa 41 years, Je-
hoshaphat 25 years. 3 years +41 years+25
years = 69 years.
If from the beginning of Abijam's reign to the
death of Ahaziah was sixty-eight years, and
from the beginning of Abijam's reign to the
death of Jehoshaphat was sixty-nine years, Je-
hoshaphat therefore died one year after Ahaziah
died.
3.
" In the thirty and first year of Asa king of
Judah began Omri to reign over Israel " (1
Kings xvi, 23).
218 Credibility of the Bible.
From the accession of Oniri to the death of
Ahaziah the reigns of Israel's kings were : Omri
12 years, Ahab 22 years, and Ahaziah 2 years.
12 years+22 years+2 years=36 years.
As Omri became king in the thirty-first year
of Asa's reign, Asa reigned ten years after Omri
became king, and this added to Jehosliaphat's
reign of twenty-five years makes thirty-five
years from Omri to the death of Jehoshaphat.
If from the accession of Omri to the death of
Ahaziah was thirty-six years, and from the ac-
cession of Omri to the death of Jehoshaphat
was thirty-five years, Jehoshaphat therefore died
one year before Ahaziah died.
" In the three and twentieth year of Joash the
son of Ahaziah king of Judah, Jehoahaz the son
of Jehu began to reign over Israel " (2 Kings
xiii, 1).
From the death of Ahaziah king of Is-
rael to the accession of Jehoahaz, Jehoram
reigned 12 years, and Jehu 28 years, a total of
40 years.
From the death of Jehoshaphat to the acces-
sion of Jehoahaz, Judah's sovereigns reigned —
Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1 year, Athalia 6 years,
Joash 23 years. 8 years+1 year+6 years+23
years=38 years.
If from the death of Ahaziah to the accession
of Jehoahaz was forty years, and from the death
of Jehoshaphat to the accession of Jehoahaz
When Did Jehoshaphat Die? 219
was thirty- eight years, Jehoshaphat therefore
died two years after Ahaziah died.
5.
"And Jehoram [of Israel] reigned in his [Aha-
ziah's] stead, in the second year of Jehoram the
son of Jehosaphat " (2 Kings i, 17).
If Ahaziah died and Jehoram of Israel became
king in the second year of Jehoram of Judah,
Jehoshaphat therefore died two years before Aha-
ziah died.
6.
"And Joram [Jehoram] king of Israel and
Ahaziah king of Judah went out, each in his
chariot . . . against Jehu" (2 Kings ix, 21),
"And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength,
and smote Jehoram between his arms, and the
arrow went out at his heart" (24). " But when
Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this he fled by
way of the garden house. And Jehu followed
after him, and said, Smite him also in the char-
iot. And they did so" (27).
Jehoram, king of Israel, and Ahaziah, king of
Judah, were thus slain at the same time. Jehu
succeeded Jehoram ; Athalia succeeded Ahaziah,
reigned six years, and was in turn succeeded by
Joash. Jehu had thus reigned six years over
Israel when Joash became king of Judah. As
Jehoram reigned twelve years, from the death of
Ahaziah [of Israel] to the accession of Joash
then, was eighteen years.
From the death of Jehoshaphat to the acces-
220 Credibility of the Bible.
sion of Joask, Judah's sovereigns reigned as fol-
lows : Joram 8 years, Akaziah 1 year, Atkaliak 6
years — a total of fifteen years.
If from tke deatk of Akaziak to tke reign of
Joask was eigkteen years, and from tke deatk of
Jekoskapkat to tke reign of Joask was fifteen
years, Jekoskapkat tkerefore died three years
after Akaziak died.
7.
" In tke second year of Joask son of Jekoakaz
king of Israel reigned Amaziak tke son of Joask
king of Judak" (2 Kings xiv, 1).
From tke deatk of Akaziak to tke accession
of Amaziak tke reigns of Israel's kings were :
Jekoram 12 years, Jeku 28 years, Jekoakaz 17
years, Joask 2 years. 12 years+28 years-j-17
years+2 years = 59 years.
From tke deatk of Jekoskapkat to tke acces-
sion of Amaziak, Judak's kings reigned — Joram
8 years, Akaziak 1 year, Athaliak 6 years, Joask
40 years. 8 years +1 year +6 years+40 years =
55 years.
If from tke deatk of Akaziak to tke accession
of Amaziak was fifty-nine years, and from tke
deatk of Jekoskapkat to tke accession of Ama-
ziak was fifty-five years, Jekoskapkat tkerefore
died four years after Akaziak died.
8.
" And Jekoskapkat tke son of Asa began to
reign over Judak in tke fourtk year of Akab
king of Israel " (1 Kings xxii, 41).
When Did Jehoshaphat Die? 221
If Ahab reigned twenty-two years and Jehosh-
aphat began to reign in the fourth year of
Ahab's reign, Jehoshaphat had reigned eighteen
years when Ahab died, and twenty years when
Ahaziah died. As Jehoshaphat reigned twenty-
five years, he therefore died^ue years after Aha-
ziah died.
9.
" Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over
Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Je-
hoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years
over Israel " (1 Kings, xxii, 51).
If Ahaziah began to reign in the seventeenth
year of Jehoshaphat and reigned two years before
he died, he died in the nineteenth year of Je-
hoshaphat's reign. As Jehoshaphat reigned
twenty-five years, he therefore died six years
after Ahaziah died.
10.
" Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to
reign over Israel in Samaria in the eighteenth
year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah" (2 Kings
iii, 1).
If Ahaziah died and Jehoram became king in
the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat's reign, Je-
hoshaphat therefore died seven years after Aha-
ziah died.
11.
" In the second year of Pekah the son of Re-
maliah king of Israel began Jotham the son of
Uzziah [Azariah] king of Judah to reign" (2
King3 xv, 32).
222 Credibility of the Bible.
From the death of Ahaziah to the beginning
of Jotham's reign the following were the reigns
of Israel's kings : Jehoram 12 years, Jehu 28
years, Jehoahaz 17 years, Joash 16 years, Jero-
boam 41 years, Zachariah and Shallum 1 year,
Menahem 10 years, Pekahiah 2 years, Pekah 2
years. 12 years+28 years+17 years +16 years
+41 years+1 year +10 years+2 years+2 years
— 129 years.
From the death of Jehoshaphat to the begin-
ing of Jotham's reign the following were the
reigns of Judah's kings: Joram 8 years, Ahaziah
1 year, Athalia 6 years, Joash 40 years, Amaziah
29 years, Azariah 52 years. 8 years+1 year+6
years+40 years+29 years 52 years=136 years.
If from the death of Ahaziah to the beginning
of Jotham's reign was one hundred and twenty-
nine years, and from the death of Jehoshaphat
to the beginning of Jotham's reign was one hun-
dred and thirty-six years, Jehoshaphat there-
fore died seven years before Ahaziah died.
12.
"In the thirty and eighth year of Azariah
king of Judah did Zachariah the son of Jero-
boam reign over Israel " (2 Kings xv, 8).
From the death of Ahaziah to the accession
of Zachariah the reigns of Israel's kings were :
Jehoram 12 years, Jehu 28 years, Jehoahaz 17
years, Joash 16 years, Jeroboam 41 years. 12
years+28 years+17 years +16 years +41 years
= 114 years;
From the death of Jehoshaphat to the acces-
When Did Jehoshaphat Die? 223
sion of Zachariah the reigns of Judah's kings
were : Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1 year, Athaliah
6 years, Joash 40 years, Amaziah 29 years, Aza-
riah 38 years. 8 years +1 year+6 years+40
years+29 years +38 years = 122 years.
If from the death of Ahaziah to the accession
of Zachariah was one hundred and fourteen
years, and from the death of Jehoshaphat to the
accession of Zachariah was one hundred and
twenty-two years, Jehoshaphat therefore died
eight years before Ahaziah died.
13.
"In the fiftieth year of Azariahking of Judah,
Pekahiah the son of Menahem began to reign
over Israel " (2 Kings xv, 23).
From the death of Ahaziah to the accession
of Pekahiah, Israel's kings reigned as follows :
Jehoram 12 years, Jehu 28 years, Jehoahaz 17
years, Joash 16 years, Jeroboam 41 years,
Zachriah and Shallum 1 year, Menahem 10
years. 12 years+28 years+17 years+16 years
+41 years+1 year+10 years = 125 years.
From the death of Jehoshaphat to the acces-
sion of Pekahiah, Judah's kings reigned as fol-
lows : Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1 year, Athaliah
6 years, Joash 40 years, Amaziah 29 years, Aza-
riah 50 years. 8 years+1 year+6 years+40
years+29 years +50 years = 134 years.
If from the death of Ahaziah to the accession
of Pekahiah was one hundred and twenty-five
years, and from the death of Jehoshaphat to the
224 Credibility of the Bible.
accession of Pekaliiah was one hundred and
thirty-four years, Jehoshaphat therefore died
nine years be/ore Ahaziah died.
14.
"In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah
began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Sama-
ria over Israel " (2 Kings xvii, 1).
From the death of Ahaziah to the accession of
Hoshea the reigns of Israel's kings were : Jeho-
ram 12 years, Jehu 28 years, Jehoahaz 17 years,
Joash 16 years, Jeroboam 41 years, Zachariah
and Shallum 1 year, Menahem 10 years, Peka-
hiah 2 years, Pekah 20 years. 12 years-f-28
years+17 years+16 years +41 years+1 year+10
years+2 years+20 years = 147 years.
From the death of Jehoshaphat to the acces-
sion of Hoshea the reigns of Judah's kings were:
Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1 year, Athaliah 6 years,
Joash 40 years, Amaziah 29 years, Azariah 52
years, Jotham 16 years, Ahaz 12 years. 8 years
+1 year+6 years+40 years+29 years+52 years
+16 years+12 years=164 years.
If from the death of Ahaziah to the accession
of Hoshea was one hundred and forty-seven
years, and from the death of Jehoshaphat to the
accession of Hoshea was one hundred and sixty-
four years, Jehoshaphat therefore died seventeen
years before Ahaziah died.
15.
"And it came to pass in the fourth year of
King Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of
When Did Jehoshaphat Die ? 225
Hoshea son of Elah kiug of Israel, that Shal-
maneser king of Assyria came up against Sama-
ria and besieged it" (2 Kings xviii, 9).
From the death of Ahaziah to the commence-
ment of the siege of Samaria the reigns of
Israel's kings were : Jehoram 12 years, Jehu 28
years, Jehoahaz 17 years, Joash 16 years, Jero-
boam 41 years, Zachariah and Shallum 1 year,
Menahem 10 years, Pekahiah 2 years, Pekah 20
years, Hoshea 7 years. 12 years+28 years+17
years+16 years+41 years+1 year+10 years+
2 years 20 years+7 years = 154 years.
From the death of Jehoshaphat to the siege
of Samaria the reigns of Judah's kings were :
Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1 year, Athaliah 6 years,
Joash 40 years, Amaziah 29 years, Azariah 52
years, Jotham 16 years, Ahaz 16 years, Hezekiah
4 years. 8 years+1 year +6 years+40 years +
29 years+52 years+16 years+16 years+4 years
= 172 years.
If from the death of Ahaziah to the seige of
Samaria was one hundred and fifty-four years,
and from the death of Jehoshaphat to the siege
of Samaria was one hundred and seventy-two
years, Jehoshaphat therefore died eighteen years
before Ahaziah died.
16.
" In the twenty and seventh year of Jereboam
king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah
king of Judah to reign " (2 Kings xv, 1).
From the death of Ahaziah to the accession
of Azariah the reigns of Israel's kings were :
226 Credibility of the Bible.
Jehoram 12 years, Jehu 28 years, Jehoahaz 17
years, Joash 16 years, Jeroboam 27 years. 12
years+28 years = 17 years +16 years = 27 years
= 100 years.
From the death of Jehoshaphat to the acces-
sion of Azariah the reigns of Judah's kings were:
Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1 year, Athaliah 6 years,
Joash 40 years, Amaziah 29 years. 8 years+1
year +6 years-f-40 years+29 years = 84 years.
If from the death of Ahaziah to the accession
of Azariah was one hundred years, and from the
death of Jehoshaphat to the accession of Azariah
was eighty-four years, Jehoshaphat therefore
died sixteen years after Ahaziah died.
Recapitulation.
When did Jehoshaphat's death occur? Did
it occur before or after Ahaziah's death oc-
curred ? The following is a recapitulation of
the various answers to this question which the
preceding solutions have disclosed :
1. The same year. 10. Seven years after.
2. One year after. 11. Seven years before.
3. One year before. 12. Eight years before.
4. Two years after. 13. Nine years before.
5. Two years before. 14. Seventeen years
6. Three years after. before.
7. Four years after. 15. Eighteen years be-
8. Five years after. fore.
9. Six years after. 16. Sixteen years after.
Here are sixteen different answers to a sim-
ple historical question. But one of them can
When Did Jehoshaphat Die? 227
possibly be correct; fifteen of them must neces-
sarily be incorrect. And yet I challenge the
theologian to demonstrate the incorrectness of
one of them without at the same time demon-
strating the fallibility of the Bible and its unre-
liability as a historical record.
notes and Explanations.
The history of Judah's and of Israel's sover-
eigns is recorded in Kings and repeated in
Chronicles. Had I used both Kings and
Chronicles in the preparation of this chapter,
the number of various answers would have
been increased. Some Christian scholars, how-
ever, admit that Chronicles is not entirely free
from errors, while Kings, on the other hand, is
denominated a "marvel of accuracy." To avoid
any objections that might be raised were Chroni-
cles used — to assail only that which is deemed
unassailable — I have confined myself to Kings.
To prevent confusion in regard to names, the
reader should remember that Israel had two
kings named Jeroboam, and that Israel and Ju-
dah each had kings named Ahaziah, Jehoram,
and Jehoash. In Israel Jehoram succeeded
Ahaziah; in Judah, Ahaziah succeeded Jeho-
ram. The contracted form of Jehoram is Joram,
and of Jehoash, Joash. Both forms are used.
Azariah is also called Uzziah.
In computing time, ordinal numbers are reck-
oned the same as cardinal numbers. It may be
urged that the phrase, "in the eighteenth year,"
228 Credibility of the Bible.
does not denote the full period of eighteen
completed years. In justification of the method
pursued, I may say that it is not only the
method generally followed by chronologists, but
it is the method authorized by the Bible. See
2 Kings xvii, 1; 2 Kings xvii, 6. Also 1 Kings
xv, 9, 10; 2 Chron. xvi, 13. Its adoption simpli-
fies the form without increasing the number of
solutions.
To reconcile other discrepancies, some Bible
chronologists have assumed an interregnum of
eleven years between the reigns of Jeroboam II.
and Zachariah, and another of nine years be-
tween Pekah and Hosea. The language of the
Bible utterly precludes these assumptions.
" And Jeroboam slept with his fathers, even
with the kings of Israel, and Zachariah his son
reigned in his stead " (2 Kings xiv, 29).
"And Hoshea the son of Elah made a con?
spiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and
smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his
stead " (2 Kings xv, 30).
That these interregnums did not occur, nor
indeed any interregnums between the reigns of
Israel's kings, is attested by Josephus, who by
Christians is esteemed an authority second only
to the writers of the Scriptures. The ninth
book of his "Antiquities" bears the following
title: "Containing the interval of one hundred
and fifty-seven years from the death of Ahab
to the captivity of the ten tribes." This forbids
the idea of any interregnum.
When Did Jehoshaphat Die? 229
But if it could be shown that these or other
interregnums really did occur, the fact would
increase rather than diminish the difficulties
connected with the solution of this question.
We search the writings of Bible commenta-
tors in vain for an explanation or attempted
reconciliation of many of the conflicting state-
ments to be found in the passages that I have
quoted. These exegetes have either been igno-
rant of their existence, or have purposely ig-
nored them. Some of the more noticeable ones
they have attempted to reconcile; but the expla-
nations offered are of such a character as to
make it seemingly impossible for an honest
scholar to advance them, or an intelligent
reader to accept them.
These pretended reconciliations have been
abridged, and, in the shape of marginal notes,
transferred to the popular editions of the Bible.
Where different and conflicting dates are as-
signed for the commencement of a king's reign,
opposite the first will be found such explana-
tory notes as " prorex," "viceroy," "in consort,"
or "in partnership with his father;" and oppo-
site the last, "began to reign alone;" and all this
without a word or hint, either in the Bible or
elsewhere, to authorize it.
The demonstration of a single error in the
Bible destroys the dogmas of its divinity and
infallibility. Yet notwithstanding this single
error, or even twenty errors, it might still be
valuable as a historical record. But when it
230 Credibility of the Bible.
can be demonstrated that it abounds with glar-
ing contradictions, that its every chapter teems
with flagrant errors, it is utterly unworthy of
credit, and must be rejected even as a human
record of events.
Inspired Numbers. 231
CHAPTEE XVII.
INSPIRED NUMBERS.
In the second chapter of Ezra is given a reg-
ister of the Jews who returned from Babylon to
Jerusalem. The register begins with these
words:
" Now these are the children of the province
that went up out of the captivity, of those
which had been carried away, whom Nebuchad-
nezzar the king of Babylon had carried away
unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem
and Judah, every one unto his city."
In the seventh chapter of Nehemiah, begin-
ning with the sixth verse, is a copy of the same
register. Nehemiah says:
" And 1 found a register of the genealogy of
them which came up at the first, and found
written therein,
" These are the children of the province, that
went up out of the captivity, of those that had
been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the
king of Babylon had carried away, and came
again to Jerusalem and to Judah, every one unto
his city."
Then follows in each a list of the families
232 Credibility of the Bible.
with the number of persons belonging to them.
But in transcribing the numbers, either Ezra or
Nehemiah has made many errors. A careful ex-
amination reveals no less than twenty, as shown
by the following :
1.
" The children of Arah, seven hundred and sev-
enty-Jive" (Ez. ii, 5).
" The children of Arah, six hundred fifty and
two " (Neh. vii, 10).
2.
" The children of Pahath-moab, of the chil-
dren of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight
hundred and twelve " (Ez. ii, 6).
"The children of Pahath-moab, of the chil-
dren of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand and eight
hundred and eighteen " (Neh. vii, 11).
3.
" The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and
five" (Ez. ii, 8).
" The children of Zattu, eight hundred forty and
five " (Neh. vii, 13).
4.
"The children of Bani, six hundred forty and
two" (Ez. ii, 10).
"The children of Binnui, six hundred forty
and eight " (Neh. vii, 15).
5.
" The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty
and three " (Ez. ii. 11).
Inspired Numbers. 233
" The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty
and eight " (Neh. vii, 16).
6.
" The children of Azgad, a thousand two hun-
dred twenty and two " (Ez. ii, 12).
" The children of Azgad, two thousand three
hundred twenty and two" (Neh. vii, 17).
7.
" The children of Adonikam, six hundred
sixty and six" (Ez. ii, 13).
" The children of Adonikam, six hundred
three score and seven ' (Neh. vii, 18).
8.
" The children of Bigvai, two thousand fifty
and six" (Ez. ii, 14).
" The children of Bigvai, two thousand three
score and seven " (Neh. vii, 19).
9.
" The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and
/owr"(Ez..ii, 15).
" The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and
five" (Neh. vii, 20).
10.
" The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty
and three " (Ez. ii, 17).
" The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty
and four " (Neh. vii, 23).
11.
" The children of Hashuan, two hundred twenty
and three " (Ez. ii, 19).
234 Credibility of the Bible.
" The children of Hashum, three hundred
twenty and eight " (Neh. vii, 22).
12.
" The children of Beth-lehem, a hundred
twenty and three.
" The men of Netophah, fifty and six " (Ez.
ii, 21, 22).
[The number of both is one hundred and
seventy -nine'].
"The men of Beth-lehem and Netophah, a
hundred four score and eight " (Neh. vii, 26).
13.
" The men of Beth-el and Ai, two hundred
twenty and three " (Ez. ii, 28).
"The men of Beth-el and Ai, a hundred twenty
and three " (Neh. vii, 32).
14.
" The children of Magbish, a hundred fifty
and six " (Ez. ii, 30).
[This family is omitted from Nehemiah's list.]
15.
" The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven
hundred twenty and Jive" (Ez. ii, 33).
" The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven
hundred twenty and one " (Neh. vii, 37).
16.
" The children of Senaah, three thousand and
six hundred and thirty" (Ez. ii, 35).
" The children of Senaah, three thousand nine
hundred and thirty " (Neh. vii, 38).
Inspired Numbers. 235
17.
" The singers: the children of Asaph, a hun-
dred twenty and eight" (Ez. ii, 41).
" The singers: the children of Asaph, a hun-
dred forty and eight " (Neh. vii, 44).
18.
" The children of the porters : the children of
Shallum, the children of Ater, the children of
Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children of
Hatita, the children of Shobai, in all a hundred
thirty and nine " (Ez. ii, 42),
"The porters: the children of Shallum, the
children of Ater, the children of Talmon, the
children of Akkub, the children of Hatita, the
children of Shobai, a hundred thirty and eight "
(Neh. vii, 45).
19.
" The children of Delaiah, the children of
Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred
fifty and two " (Ez. ii, 60).
"The children of Delaiah, the children of
Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred
forty and two " (Neh. vii, 62).
20.
"And there were among them two hundred
singing men and singing women" (Ez. ii, 65).
"And they had two hundred forty and five
singing men and singing women" (Neh. vii, 67).
The following is a table of the census of all
the families, as given by Ezra and Nehemiah
respectively :
236 Credibility of the Bible.
FAMILY. EZRA. NEHKMIAH
Parosh.
2,172 2,172
Shephatiah 372 372
Arah 775 652
Pahath-Moab, etc 2,812 2,818
Elam 1,254 J.254
Zattu 945 845
Zaccai 760 760
Bani 642 648
Bebai 623 628
Azgad 1,222 2,322
Adonikam 666 667
Bigvai 2,056 2,067
Adin 454 655
Ater 98 98
Bezai 323 324
Jorah (Hariph) 112 112
Hashum 223 328
Gibbar (Gibeon) 95 95
Beth-lehem and Netophah 179 188
Anathoth 128 128
Azmaveth 42 42
Kirjath-arim, etc 743 743
Ramah and Gabah 621 621
Michmas 122 122
Bethel and A i 223 123
Nebo 52 52
Magbish 156
Elam 1,254 1.254
Harim.. 320 320
Lod, Hadid. and Ono 725 721
Jericho 345 345
Senaah 3,630 3, 930
Jedaiah 973 973
Immer 1,052 1,052
Pashur 1,247 1,247
Harim 1,017 1.017
Jeshua, etc 74 74
Asaph 128 148
Inspired Numbers. 237
FAMILY. EZRA. NEHEMIAH.
Shallum, etc 139 138
The Nethinim, etc 392 392
Delaiah, etc 652 642
Servants 7,337 7,337
Singers 200 245
In the above table are twenty discrepancies.
Twenty errors in forty-three numerical state-
ments is a bad showing for an infallible record.
Ezra and Nehemiah both state that the whole
congregation, exclusive of the servants and sing-
ers, numbered 42,360. Yet the sum total of each
is much less than this, that of Ezra being but
29,818, and Nehemiah, 31,089.
In the number of domestic animals Ezra and
Nehemiah agree. In the oblations they disa-
gree. According to Ezra they gave 61,000 drams
of gold, 5,000 pounds of silver, and 100 priests'
garments. According to Nehemiah they gave
in all 41,000 drams of gold, 4,200 pounds of sil-
ver, and 597 priests' garments.
When bibliolaters affirm that there is not one
error in the Bible, refer them to this register,
where in two chapters may be found two dozen
errors.
238 Credibility of the Bible.
CHAPTER XVIII.
HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS.
The more intelligent of orthodox Christians
admit that the Bible as a whole is not infallible
and divine, but claim that it contains a divine
revelation — that a part of it is the work of God
and a part the work of man. And yet they can-
not separate the one from the other, cannot
agree as to which is divine and which human.
Concerning this claim Prof. Goldwin Smith
writes :
" When we are told there are in the Old Tes-
tament scriptures both a human and a divine ele-
ment, we must ask by what test the divine is to
be distinguished from the human? Nobody
would have thought of 'partial inspiration' except
as an expedient to cover retreat. We but tamper
with our own understanding and consciences by
such attempts at once to hold on and let go; to
retain the shadow of the belief when the sub-
stance has passed away. Far better it is, what-
ever the effort may cost, honestly to admit that
the sacred books of the Hebrews, granting their
superiority to the sacred books of other nations,
are, like the sacred books of other nations, the
works of man and not of God."
Harmony of the Gospels. 239
Others admit the fallibility and human origin
of the Old Testament and claim infallibility and
divinity for the New Testament alone. But
they cannot consistently claim infallibility and
divinity for the New and not for the Old. The
New Testament Is based upon the Old. If the
foundation be fallible the superstructure must
be fallible also. Both have been declared can-
onical; both are bound in the same volume and
labeled Holy Bible. The chief apostles declared
the writings of the Old Testament to be divine,
a claim they did not make for the writings of
the New. Besides, the New Testament is as full
of errors as the Old.
It has been shown that the Four Gospels are
not genuine — that they were not written by
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is to
their credit that they were not. A knowledge
of the fact relieves the Apostles and their com-
panions of a very discreditable imputation.
Were four witnesses to testify in a court of
justice and contradict each other as the Evan-
gelists do, they would be prosecuted for perjury.
In another work five hundred errors to be
found in the Four Gospels will be exposed. In
this chapter twenty, selected largely at random,
will suffice to disprove the credibility of these
books :
1.
When was Jesus born ?
" In the days of Herod the king " (Matt, ii, 1).
240 Credibility of the Bible.
" When Cyrenius was governor of Syria "
(Luke ii, 2).
Between Matthew and Luke there is a dis-
crepancy of fully nine years. If Jesus was born
in the days of Herod he was born at least three
years before the beginning of the Christian era:
if he was born in the time of Cyrenius he was
born at least six years after the beginning of
the Christian era.
2.
Where was Jesus born, in a house, or in a
manger ?
" And when they were come into the house,
they saw the young child with Mary his mother"
(Matt, ii, 11).
" And they came with haste and found Mary
and Joseph and the babe lying in a manger"
(Luke ii, 16).
3.
What did his parents do with him ?
" When he [Joseph] arose, he took the young
child and his mother by night, and departed
into Egypt; and was there until the death of
Herod "' (Matt, ii, 14, 15).
"And when the days of her [Mary's] purifi-
cation according to the law of Moses were ac-
complished, they brought him to Jerusalem to
present him to the Lord . . . And when
they had performed all things according to the
law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to
their own city Nazareth " (Luke ii, 22, 39).
Harmony of the Gospels. 241
4.
What were the names of the twelve apostles ?
" Now the names of the twelve Apostles are
these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter,
and Andrew his brother; James the son of
Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bar-
tholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican;
James the son of Alpheus, and Lebbeus, whose
surname was Thaddeus; Simon the Canaanite,
and Judas Iscariot " (Matt, x, 2-4).
"He chose twelve, whom also he named apos-
tles : Simon (whom he also named Peter), and
Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and
Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the
son of Alpheus, and Simon called Zelotes, and
Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot "
(Luke vi, 13-16).
5.
Whom did Jesus call from the receipt of cus-
tom?
" He saw a man named Matthew, sitting at
the receipt of custom; and he saith unto him,
Follow me " (Matt, ix, 9).
" He went forth, and saw a publican, named
Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom : and he
said unto him, Follow me " (Luke v, 27).
6.
When Jesus sent out his Apostles, did he
command them to provide themselves with
staves ?
"And he commanded them that they should
242 Credibility of the Bible.
take nothing for t heir journey, save a staff only;
no scrip, no bread, no money" (Mark vi, 8).
" And he said unto them, Take nothing for
your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither
bread, neither money" (Luke ix, 3).
7.
What did Jesus' neighbors say of him?
" Is not this the carpenter ?" (Mark vi, 3).
" Is not this the carpenter's son?" (Matt, xiii,
55.)
8.
Was it one man or two men possessed with
devils who came out of the tombs ?
" There met him out of the tombs a man with
an unclean spirit" (Mark v, 2).
" There met him two possessed with devils
coming out of the tombs " (Matt, viii, 28).
9.
As Jesus was going to Jerusalem, how many
blind men sat by the wayside ?
" A certain blind man sat by the way side beg-
ging. . . . And he cried, saying, Jesus thou
Son of David, have mercy on me " (Luke xviii,
35).
"Two blind men sitting by the way side
when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried
out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou
Son of David " (Matt, xx, 30).
10.
What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's
denial?
Harmony of the Gospels. 243
" Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me
thrice" (Matt, xxvi, 34).
" Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny
me thrice " (Mark xiv, 30).
11.
What was the color of the robe placed on
Jesus during his trial?
"And they stripped him, and put on him a
scarlet robe " (Matt, xxvii, 28).
" And they put on him a purple robe " (John
xix, 2).
12.
At what time during the day was he crucified?
"And it was the third hour [9 a.m.], and they
crucified him" (Mark xv, 25).
"And it was the preparation of the Passover,
and about the sixth hour [noon]. . . . Then
delivered he him unto them to be crucified"
(John xix, 14, 16).
. 13.
What did they give him to drink?
"They gave him vinegar to drink mingled
with gall " (Matt, xxvii, 34).
"They gave him to drink wine mingled with
myrrh" (Mark xv, 23).
14.
Did both thieves revile him on the cross?
"And they that were crucified with him re-
viled him " (Mark xv, 32).
"And one of the malefactors which were
244 Credibility of the Bible.
hanged railed on him. . . . But the other
answering rebuked him " (Luke xxiii, 39, 40).
15.
Certain words were inscribed on the cross;'
what were these words?
" The King of the Jews " (Mark xv, 26).
" This is the King of the Jews " (Luke xxiii,
38).
" This is Jesus the King of the Jews " (Matt,
xxvii, 37).
" Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews "
(John xix, 19).
16.
Was it lawful for the Jews to put Jesus to
death?
"The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not
lawful for us to put any man to death " (John
xviii, 31).
" The Jews answered him, We have a law, and
by our law he ought to die " (John xix, 7).
17.
What women visited the sepulchre on the
morning of the resurrection?
"The first day of the week cometh Mary Mag-
dalene, early when it was yet dark, unto the
sepulchre " (John xx, 1).
" In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to
dawn toward the first day of the week, came
Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the
sepulchre " (Matt, xxviii, 1).
Harmony of the Gospels. 245
"Now upon the first day of the week, very
early in the morning, they came unto the sep-
ulchre. ... It was Mary Magdalene, and
Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and
other women " (Luke xxiv, 1, 10).
18.
At what time in the morning did they visit the
tomb?
"At the rising of the sun " (Mark xvi, 2).
" When it was yet dark" (John xx, 1).
19.
Whom did they see at the tomb?
" The angel " (Matt, xxviii, 2).
" A young man " (Mark xvi, 5).
"Two men " (Luke xxiv, 4).
"Two angels " (John xx, 12).
20.
Where did Jesus first appear to his disciples?
"Then said Jesus unto them [the women], Be
not afraid; go tell my brethren that they go into
Galilee, and there shall they see me. . . .
Then the eleven disciples went away into Gali-
lee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed
them. And when they saw him they worshiped
him; but some doubted " (Matt, xxviii, 10, 16,
17).
"And they rose up the same hour, and re-
turned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gath-
erered together, and them that were with them,
saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath ap-
peared to Simon. . . . And as they thus
246 Credibility of the Bible.
spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them "
(Luke xxiv, 33, 34, 36).
The first time I read Paine's "Age of Reason"
I was amazed to learn that the Bible contains
as many errors as he exposes. But when a lit-
tle later I made a more thorough study and
analysis of the Pentateuch, the so-called his-
torical books of the Old Testament, and the Four
Gospels, I found that Paine had only selected
here and there one of a multitude of errors —
that in a single book of the Bible were to be
found more errors than he had cited from its
sixty-six. The briefest expose* of all the errors
of the Bible would require a larger volume than
the Bible itself. And yet, this book which con-
tains more errors than any other book in Chris-
tendom, is the only book for which Christians
claim inerrancy.
•
Paul and the Apostles. 247
CHAPTEK XIX.
PAUL AND THE APOSTLES.
In this chapter will be presented some pas-
sages from Paul and the other Apostles pertain-
ing to their writings, their teachings, and their
characters, which affect the credibility of the
remaining books of the New Testament.
1.
It is popularly supposed that Jesus and his
twelve Apostles formulated the doctrines of
Christianity and founded the Christian church.
Paul was the real author of this religion and the
founder of the church.
"Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to
seek Saul : and when he had found him, he
brought him unto Antioch. And it came to
pass, that a whole year they assembled them-
selves with the church, and taught much people.
And the disciples were called Christians first in
Antioch" (Acts xi, 25, 26),
Jesus Christ was a Jew. Peter, John, James,
and the other Apostles in Palestine were not
Christians, but Jews — orthodox Jews — who dif-
fered from other Jews chiefly in accepting Jesus
248 Credibility of the Bible.
as the expected Jewish Messiah. Paul and his
followers were the first Christians. The Dutch
critics frankly admit that " Christianity has to
thank him more than any other for its exist-
ence," that be was " the founder of the Christian
church," and that "without him it would have
remained an insignificant or forgotten Jewish
sect" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III. pp. 20,
642, 643).
2.
The conversion of Paul is described as fol-
lows:
" And as he journeyed, he came near Damas-
cus: and suddenly there shined round about
him a light from heaven: and he fell to the
earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul,
Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said,
Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am
Jesus whom thou persecutest" (Acts ix, 3-5).
This was simply a hallucination; and upon
this hallucination of the diseased mind of Paul
the whole system of Christian theology is based.
3.
The effect of Paul's miraculous conversion
upon his companions is thus related:
"And the men which journeyed with him
stood speechless" (Acts ix, 7).
"We were all fallen to the earth" (xxvi, 14).
4.
" And the men which journeyed with him stood
Paul and the Apostles. 249
speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man "
(Acts ix, 7).
"And they that were with me saw indeed the
light, and were afraid; but they heard not the
voice of him that spake to me" (xxii, 9).
5.
After his conversion Acts states that "straight-
way he preached Christ in the synagogues " (ix,
20) at Damascus; that when, soon after, the
Jews sought to kill him he escaped and went
immediately to Jerusalem; that " Barnabas took
him, and brought him to the apostles " (27);
(t And he was with them coming in and going out
at Jerusalem" (28).
Paul denies this. Referring to his conversion
he says:
" Immediately I conferred not with flesh and
blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them
which were apostles before me; but I went into
Arabia, andre turned again unto Damascus. Then
after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see
JPeter and abode with him fifteen days. But
other of the apostles saw I none, save James the
Lord's brother " (Gal. i, 16-19).
6.
Paul declares that his mission was to the
Gentiles alone.
"I am the Apostle of the Gentiles " (Rom. xi
13).
•'That I should be the minister of Jesus
Christ to the Gentiles " (xv, 16).
250 Credibility of the Bible.
Acoording to Acts (ix, 20-22; xiii, 5, 14-43;
xiv, 1; xvii, 1, 2, 10; xviii, 4, 19; xxviii, 17),
from the beginning to the end of his ministry,
he was continually preaching in the synagogues
to the Jews.
7.
While Paul proclaims himself the apostle to
the Gentiles he declares that Peter's mission
was confined to the Jews.
" The gospel of the uncircumcision was com-
mitted unto me, as the gospel of the circumcis-
ion was unto Peter" (Gal. ii, 7).
Peter contends that his mission was to the
Gentiles.
" And when there had been much disputing,
Peter rose up, and said uuto them, Men and
brethren, ye know how that a good while ago
God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by
my mouth should hear the word of the gospel "
(Acts xv, 7).
8.
The chief of Paul's theological teachings is
Justification by Faith alone.
" Knowing that a man is not justified by the
works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus
Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ
and not by the works of the law: for by the
works of the law shall no flesh be justified"
(Gal. ii, 16).
" If righteousness come by the law, then Christ
is dead in vain " (21).
Paul and the Apostles. 251
" Therefore we conclude that a man is justi-
fied by faith without the deeds of the law"
(Eom. iii, 28).
James declares this doctrine to be false and
pernicious.
" But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith
without works is dead" (James ii, 20).
" For as the body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead also " (26).
"Ye see then how that by works a man is
justified, and not by faith only " (24).
9
The two great miracles of the Gospels are the
immaculate conception and the bodily resurrec-
tion of Jesus. The Evangelists teach the doc-
trine of the immaculate conception. Paul and
Peter declare Jesus to be simply a man.
Paul: " The man Christ Jesus " (1 Tim. ii, 5).
Peter: "A man approved of God "(Acts ii,
22).
10.
The Evangelists teach the resurrection of the
natural body — a body of flesh and blood. Paul
teaches a spiritual resurrection only.
" It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spir-
itual body " (1 Cor. xv, 44).
" Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God" (,60).
11.
Paul both affirms and denies the immortality
of man: "Glory and honor and immortality'
252 Credibility of the Bible.
(Rom. ii, 7). " This mortal must put on immor-
tality" (1 Cor. xv, 53).
" The King of kings, and Lord of lords
[Christ]; who only hath immortality" (1 Tim.
vi, 15, 16).
12.
Paul: " Wherefore the law was our school-
master to bring us unto Christ, that we might
be justified by faith. But after that faith is
come we are no longer under a schoolmaster "
(Gal. iii, 24, 25).
" But now we are delivered from the law "
(Rom. vii, 6).
Jesus: "Think not that I am come to destroy
the law. ... I am not come to destroy, but
to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven
and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no
wise pass from the law" (Matt.v, 17, 18).
13.
" We which are alive and remain unto the
coming of the Lord shall not prevent them
which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall
descend from heaven, . . . and the dead in
Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive
and remain shall be caught up together with
them in the clouds " (1 Thes iv, 15-17).
Paul believed that Christ had appeared to
him. It was a delusion. He expected Christ to
come again. He was mistaken.
Paul and the Apostles. 253
14.
The following is an example of Paul's reason-
ing:
" Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to
them that believe, but to them that believe not;
but prophesying serveth not for them that be-
lieve not, but for them which believe. If, there-
fore, the whole church be come together into
one place, and all speak with tongues, and there
come in those that are unlearned, or unbe-
lievers, will they not say ye are mad? But if
all prophesy, and there cometh in one that be-
lieveth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of
all" (1 Cor. xiv, 22-24).
Speaking with tongues is for the unbeliever.
Therefore if you speak with tongues the unbe-
liever is not convinced.
Prophesying is not for the unbeliever. There-
fore if yon prophesy the unbeliever is convinced.
"Paul also according to the wisdom given
unto him hath written unto you; as also in all of
his epistles, speaking in them of these things;
in which are some things hard to he understood "
(2 Peter iii, 15, 16).
The Duke of Somerset says : " There is
scarcely a single passage in the Pauline Epis-
tles, or a single doctrine in the Pauline the-
ology, which is not darkened or embroiled by
the ambiguity of the expression " (Christian
Theology and Modern Scepticism, p. 116).
254 Credibility of the Bible.
15.
The following passage of seven verses from
Paul (Rom. iii, 12-18) is borrowed from six
different chapters of the Old Testament. Is it
a medley of misquotations, or a mosaic of
plagiarisms?
"They are all gone out of the way, they are
together become unprofitable; there is none
that doeth good, no, not one.
" Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their
tongues they have used deceit; the poison of
asps is under their lips.
"Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitter-
ness.
" Their feet are swift to shed blood.
" Destruction and misery are in their ways.
" And the way of peace have they not known.
" There is no fear of God before their eyes."
" They are all gone aside, they are all together
become filthy : there is none that doeth good,
no, not one " (Ps. xiv, 3).
"Their throat is an open sepulchre ; they
flatter with the tongue (Ps. v, 9). Adders' poi-
son is under their lips " (cxl, 3).
" His mouth is full of cursing and deceit "
(Ps. x, 7).
" Their feet run to evil and they make haste
to shed innocent blood" (Is. lix, 7).
" Wasting and destruction are in their paths"
(Ibid .
Paul and the Apostles. 255
" The way of peace they know not " (8).
"There is no fear of God before his eyes"
(Ps. xxxvi, 1).
16.
The following words are ascribed to Jesus by
Paul:
" Eemember the words of the Lord Jesus, how
he said, It is more blessed to give than to re-
ceive" (Acts xx, 35).
No such words are to be found in the recorded
sayings of Jesus.
" But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor
ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of
man, the things which God hath prepared for
them that love him" (1 Cor. ii, 9).
The above is quoted by Paul as scripture, but
the scriptures do not contain this passage.
17.
"Who his [Christ's] own self bare our sins
in his own body on the tree " (1 Peter ii, 24).
The Epistles of Peter are devoted largely to
Christ's suffering and death, but no mention is
made of his crucifixion. The words "cross"
and u crucify" are not to be found in them. In
Acts Peter speaks of Jesus' death as follows :
11 Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree "
(v, 30).
" God anointed Jesus of Nazareth . . . whom
they slew and hanged on a tree " (x, 38, 93).
18.
"For there art three that bear record in heaven,
256 Credibility of the Bible.
the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost ; and
these three are one" (1 John v, 7).
This is the chief text relied upon to support
the doctrine of the Trinity, and this text all
Christian scholars admit to be a forgery.
19.
" And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam,
prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord
cometh with ten thousand of his saints " (Jude
14).
Jude's scriptural authority is an apocryphal
book.
Genesis, Chronicles, and Luke all agree that
Enoch was not the seventh, but the sixth from
Adam.
"Adam . . . begat . . . Seth"(Gen.
v, 3) ; " Seth . . . begat Enos " (6) ; " Enos
. . . begat Cainan (9) ; "Cainan . . . be-
gat Mahalaleel " (12) ; " Mahalaleel . * . . be-
gat Jared " (15) ; " Jared . . . begat Enoch"
(18).
" Adam, Sheth, Enoch, Kenan, Mahalaleel,
Jared, Henoch " (1 Chron. i, 1-3).
" Which was the son of Enoch, which was the
son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel,
which was the son of Cainan, which was the son
of Seth, which was the son of Adam " (Luke iii,
37, 38).
20.
" Now Peter sat without in the palace : and a
damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast
Paul and the Apostles. 257
with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before
them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest "
(Matt, xxvi, 69, 70).
" And again he denied with an oath, I do not
know the man" (72).
" Then began he to curse and to swear, say-
ing, I know not the man " (74).
" But when Peter was come to Antioch, I
[Paul] withstood him to the face, because he
was to be blamed. For before that certain
came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles ;
but when they were come, he withdrew and
separated himself, fearing them which were of
the circumcision. And the other Jews dissem-
bled likewise with him " (Gal. ii, 11-13).
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church " (Matt, xvi, 18).
21.
" Him [Timothy] would Paul have to go with
him, and took and circumcised him because of
the Jews which were in those quarters " (Acts
xvi, 3).
" Thou seest, brother [Paul], how many thou-
sands of Jews there are which believe, and they
are all zealous of the law. . . . Do therefore
this that we say to thee : We have four men
which have a vow on them ; them take and
purify thyself with them. Then Paul took the
men, and the next day purifying himself with
them entered into the temple " (Acts xxi, 20-
26).
258 Credibility of the Bible.
Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy. But if
he practiced circumcision, and took the vow of a
Nazarite, as claimed, he was a greater hypocrite
than Peter ; for Saul the Jew was not more vio-
lently opposed to the religion of Christ than
Paul the Christian was to the religion of the
Jews. That he was addicted to hypocrisy and
dissimulation is shown by the following admis-
sions in his genuine epistles :
" Being crafty I caught you with guile " (2 Cor.
xii, 16).
" Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I
might gain the Jews " (1 Cor. ix, 20).
" I am made all things to all men" (22).
22.
John impeaches the credibility of Paul and
denounces him as a liar. Critics agree that
portions of Revelation, including the following,
are aimed directly at Paul :
" Thou hast tried them which say they are
apostles, and are not, and hast found them
liars " (ii, 2).
23.
" And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings
of the prophecy of this book : for the time is at
hand " (Rev. xxii, 10).
Among much that is unintelligible, the writer
of Revelation clearly predicts the destruction of
Rome (xvii, 16, 18) ; asserts that Nero, who was
really dead, was yet alive (xiii, 3) ; proclaims
the immediate coming of Christ (i, 7 ; xxii, 7,
Paul and the Apostles. 259
12), the avenging of the persecuted prophets
and apostles (xviii, 20), the binding of Satan for
a thousand years (xx, 2), and the establishment
of God's kingdom (xxi).
" We know how completely these expectations
were disappointed. Jerusalem, where the tem-
ple at least was never to be violated, fell utterly,
and the sanctuary was laid low never to rise
again ; while Rome, instead of being turned to
a desert, still held her rank and fame. Nero,
the Antichrist, was dead and never returned to
life ; but neither did the Christ come back to
earth. The martyrs were not avenged, but fresh
persecutions awaited the faithful. The king-
dom of Satan held its own, and the kingdom of
God came not" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p.
655).
260 Credibility of the Bible.
CHAPTER XX.
THE BIBLE AND HISTORY.
About one-half of the books of the Bible pur-
port to be, to a considerable extent at least,
historical. But from Genesis to Revelation
there is scarcely a book which can be accepted
as a reliable record of events. Nearly all of
them abound with manifest absurdities, exag-
gerations, and contradictions. Their authors,
for the most part, deal with matters concerning
which the ancient profane historians take no
cognizance; and this, in a measure, conceals
their errors. But when they do refer to known
historical events, they exhibit such an igno-
rance of the facts, or such a desire to pervert
them, as to destroy their credibility. In this
chapter will be presented some " sacred " his-
tory which reason rejects or the demonstrated
facts of profane history disprove.
1.
"In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth."
The Bible, it is affirmed, contains a connected
The Bible and History. 261
and reliable historical and chronological record
of events from the Creation down to the univer-
sally accepted dates of profane history. And
yet between the three versions of the Jewish
Bible there is an utter disagreement. The crea-
tion of the world, according to these versions,
was as follows :
Hebrew, 4004 B.C.
Samaritan, 4700 "
Septuagint, 5872 "
The Talmud and Josephus, based upon the
above, agree with neither, nor with each other.
According to the Talmud, the Creation occurred
5344 B.C.; according to Josephus, 4658 B.C.
2.
" And the children of Israel journeyed from
Eameses to Succoth, about six hundred thou-
sand on foot that were men, beside children.
And a mixed multitude went up also with them;
and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.
Even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all
the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of
Egypt" (Ex. xii, 37, 38,41).
" And Moses stretched out his hand over the
sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by
a strong east wind all that night. . . . And
the children of Israel went into the midst of the
sea upon the dry ground. . . . Thus the
Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of
the Egvptians" (Ex. xiv, 21, 22, 30).
The Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt is
262 Credibility of the Bible.
represented as having taken place in an incred-
ibly brief space of time. It was after midnight
when Moses was ordered to notify his people to
depart. Before morning they were all en route
from Barneses to the Red Sea, which they
reached in three days and crossed in a few hours.
As there were 600,000 men, the total number
of persons must have been nearly 3,000,000.
Three millions is a number easily spoken and
quickly written. But neither the author of this
story nor those who accept it as history have
the slightest conception of its meaning. They
evidently think that three million people — old
and young; men, women, and children; the sick
and the lame, together with their flocks and
herds, their household effects and provisions —
could be moved with the celerity of a few hun-
dred men. When Napoleon crossed the Nieman
in 1812, it took his army of trained soldiers, in-
ured to hardships and accustomed to rapid
marches, three days and nights to cross the
river in close file on three bridges. Had his
army been as large as this body of Israelites, to
have crossed the river on one bridge, allowing
the necessary time for rest, would have taken
six months. It would have required months to
notify, assemble, and organize this vast popula-
tion of slaves in readiness for their migration.
And when the journey began, if the head of the
column had left Barneses in the spring the
rear of the column would not have been able
to move before autumn.
The Bible and History. 263
3.
"Behold the land of Canaan, which I give
unto the children of Israel for a possession "
(Deut. xxxii, 49).
In the twelfth chapter of Joshua is given a
list of thirty-one kingdoms which were con-
quered by them. This was in the fifteenth
century B.C. From this time forward they are
represented as a mighty nation by Bible his-
torians.
Barneses III. overran Canaan and conquered
it between 1280 and 1260 B.C. The Egyptian
records give a list of all the tribes inhabiting it.'
The children of Israel — the Hebrews — were not
there. In the fifth century B.C., when Herodotus,
the father of history, was collecting materials
for his immortal work, he traversed nearly
every portion of Western Asia. He describes
all its principal peoples and places; but the
Jews and Jerusalem are of too little conse-
quence to merit a line from his pen. Not until
332 B.C. do the Jews appear upon the stage of
history, and then only as the submissive vassals
of a Grecian king.
4.
1. "Elhanan, the son of Jair, the Bethlehem-
ite, slew Goliath of Gath, the shaft of whose
spear was like a weaver's beam" (2 Sam. xxi, 19,
H. V.).
2. "Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the
brother of Goliath the Gifctite, whose spear staff
was like a weaver's beam " (1 Chron. xx, 5).
264 Credibility of the Bible.
3. " Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Beth-
lehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite,
the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's
beam " (2 Sam. xxi, 19, A. V.).
The above are three versions of the same pas-
sage. The first is a correct translation of the
passage as it appears in the Hebrew. It is a
part of one of the two discordant narratives
used by the compiler of Samuel. The compiler
of Chronicles saw the discrepancy and inter-
polated the words " Lahmi the brother of." Our
translators interpolated the words "the brother of."
Critics admit that if the killing of Goliath is
a historical event, which is improbable, it was
Elkanah, and not David, who slew him. The
story of David and Goliath given by the other
narrator in 1 Samuel is a myth. This writer
says : " And David took the head of the Philis-
tine, and brought it to Jerusalem," evidently
believing that the Israelites then occupied Jeru-
salem, whereas the duel between David and Goli-
ath is said to have occurred 1062 B.C., while the
conquest and occupancy of Jerusalem by the
Israelites did not occur until 1047 B.C., fifteen
years later.
5.
"And Solomon sent to Hiram, saying, . . .
Behold, I purpose to build an house unto the
name of the Lord my God, . . ■ and my
servants shall be with thy servants, and unto
thee will I give hire for thy servants " (1 Kings
v, 2, 5, 6).
The Bible and History. 265
"And Solomon had three score and ten thou-
sand that bare burdens, and four score thousand
hewers in the mountains; beside the chief of
Solomon's officers which were over the work,
three thousand and three hundred " (15, 16).
" So was he seven years in building it " (vi,
38)
"And the house which King Solomon built
for the Lord, the length thereof was threescore
cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits,
and the height thereof thirty cubits " (2).
The main building of Solomon's Temple, then,
was about 96 feet long, 32 feet wide, and 48 feet
high. One hundred and fifty thousand men en-
gaged seven years in building a house as large
as a village church or a country store ! The
mountain labored and brought forth a mouse !
6.
" And the children of Israel fled before Judah:
and God delivered them into their hand. And
Abijah and his people slew them with great
slaughter: so there fell down slain of Israel five
hundred thousand chosen men " (2 Chron. xiii,
16, 17).
Five hundred thousand slain in one battle!
At the battle of Gettysburg, one of the greatest
battles of modern times, for three long days, two
mighty armies of America engaged in deadly
conflict, and when it was ended, the defeated
army had less than five thousand killed. And
yet we are asked to believe that this puny race
266 Credibility of the Bible.
of Hebrews, too insignificant to attract the no-
tice of ancient historians, marshaled in battle
two contending armies, the carnage of which
equaled that of a hundred Gettysburgs.
Talk about oriental exaggeration ! If you
wish to find its choicest specimens, search not
the pages of Persian and Arabian romance, but
read a chapter of sacred history.
7.
" And Pul the king of Assyria came against
the land; and Menahem gave Pul a thousand
talents of silver, that his hand might be with
him to confirm the kingdom in his hand" (2
Kings xv, 19).
The king who reigned in Assyria at this time
was Iva-lush. Assyria never had a king named
Pul.
8.
" Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a
thousand of his lords, and drank wine before
the thousand. Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the
wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver
vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had
taken out of the temple which was in Jerusa-
lem; that the king, and his princes, his wives,
and his concubines, might drink therein " (DaD.
v, 1, 2).
" In the same hour came forth fingers of a
man's hand and wrote over against the candle-
stick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's
palace" (5).
The Bible and History. 267
"And this is the writing that was written:
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN " (25).
" In that night was Belshazzar the king of
the Chaldeans [Babylon] slain. And Darius
the Median took the kingdom " (30, 31).
As a dramatic piece of fiction Belshazzar's
Feast is good; as a chapter of ancient history it
is bad. Belshazzar was not the son of Nebu-
chadnezzar; neither was he king of Babylon.
Darius the Mede did not take the kingdom.
9.
" And it came to pass in those days, that there
went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all
the world should be taxed. (And this taxing
was first made when Cyrenius was governor of
Syria.) . . . And Joseph also went up
from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into
Judea, unto the city of David, which is called
Bethlehem (because he was of the house and
lineage of David), to be taxed with Mary his
espoused wife, being great with child " (Luke
ii, 1-5).
This cannot be accepted as historical for the
following reasons:
1. Caesar Augustus never issued a decree that
all the world should be taxed, nor even one that
all the Roman world should be taxed.
2. If he had issued such a decree Joseph and
Mary would not have been subject to taxation,
because they lived in Galilee, an independent
province.
3. Had they been subject to taxation they
268 Credibility of the Bible.
would have been enrolled in their own country
and not in some distant kingdom.
4. Cyrenius did not become governor of
Syria until nearly ten years after the death of
Herod, and Jesus was born, it is claimed, in the
days of Herod.
10.
" Then Herod, when he saw that he was
mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth,
and sent forth and slew all the children
that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts
thereof, from two years old and under " (Matt.
ii, 16).
The statement that Herod the Great, who was
firmly established in his government, and who
had full-grown male heirs to succeed him, was
afraid that the babe of an obscure Nazareth
carpenter would supplant him in his kingdom,
is enough to cause a Covenanter to laugh on
Sunday. Had Herod issued such a decree his
friends, instead of executing it, would have had
him confined in a madhouse. The fact that
the Roman aud Jewish historians of that age —
one of whom, an enemy, gives a full and com-
plete record of his life — know nothing of this
awful tragedy, that an anonymous author writ-
ing nearly two centuries afterward is the only
one who mentions it, is of itself sufficient to
brand it as an atrocious falsehood.
11.
" That upon you may come all the righteous
The Bible and History. 269
blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of
righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son
of Barachias whom ye slew between the temple
and the altar " (Matt, xxiii, 35).
The divine historian ascribes these words to
Jesus. Jesus was crucified, it is claimed, about
29 ad. Zacharias was slain in 69 A.D., forty
years after the death of Jesus. Some contend
that Jesus refers to the Zachariah mentioned in
2 Chronicles (xxiv, 20, 25). But this Zachariah
was the son of Jehoiada. Besides, the accusa-
tion of Jesus is intended to cover all time from
the first to the last offense, and to name this
Zachariah would be to admit that they had shed
no righteous blood for 850 years.
12.
" For before these days rose up Theudas,
boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a
number of men, about four hundred, joined
themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as
obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to
nought.
" After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in
the days of the taxing, and drew away much
people after him: he also perished" (Acts v, 36,
37).
According to Acts the sedition of Theudas
occurred before the taxing, which was about 6
a.d. It really occurred while Fadus was proc-
urator of Judea, about 46 a.d. — forty years after
the date assigned in Acts.
270 Credibility of the Bible.
The Bible is largely a medley of fables, my-
thologies, and legends. These legends contain
a modicum of truth — how much cannot be deter-
mined. The reliable historian faithfully pre-
sents the facts contained in the materials at his
command. These so-called sacred historians
do not. With them history is secondary to
theology and made subservient to it. Every
event is represented as a special act of divine
Providence and is tortured to uphold and serve
their theological notions. Referring to the
author or compiler of Judges, Dr. Oort says:
" The writer has drawn most of his narratives
from trustworthy sources. . . . Our grati-
tude to him would indeed be still greater than
it is, if he had given us all that he found in his
authorities unmixed and unaltered. But to an
Israelite historian this seems to have been a
simple impossibility " (Bible for Learners, Vol.
L, p. 363).
The Bible and Science. 271
CHAPTEE XXI.
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE.
" There is a beautiful harmony between the
principles of science and the teachings of the
Bible."— Dr. Cheever.
Bibliolaters, unacquainted with the principles
of science, and scientists unacquainted with the
teachings of the Bible, may accept this state-
ment ; those conversant with both cannot. In
the Bible a thousand scientific errors may be
found. The limits of this work preclude a
presentation of them all. Enough will be given,
however, to show that the teachings of the Bible
conflict with the teachings of the ten principal
sciences — Astronomy, Geology, Geography, Bot-
any, Zoology, Ethnology, Physiology, Chem-
istry, Physics, and Mathematics.
Astronomy.
" And God said, Let there be light, and there
was light" (Gen. i, 3).
" And God called the light day, and the dark-
ness he called night. And the evening and the
morning were the first day" (5).
"And God made two great lights ; the greater
272 Credibility of the Bible.
light to rule the clay and the lesser light to rule
the night ; he made the stars also. . . .
and the evening and the morning were the fourth
day" (16, 19).
The cause is supposed to precede the effect ;
but here the effect precedes the cause. Light
and darkness, morning and evening, day and
night exist before the sun.
The Bible teaches us that the earth is older
than the sun ; science teaches us that the sun is
older than the earth.
In the creation of the universe God devoted
five-sixths of his time to the creation of this lit-
tle world of ours, while but a fragment of the
remaining time was needed to create the count-
less worlds that exist outside of our solar sys-
tem. Five brief words, "He made the stars
also," record the history of their creation.
According to the Bible, the oldest star is less
than six thousand years old. What says the
scientist?
" I have observed stars, of which the light, it
can be proved, must take two millions of years
to reach this earth." — Sir William Herschel.
" Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon ; and thou,
Moon, in the valley of Ajalon."
" So the sun stood still in the midst of
heaven, and hasted not to go down about a
whole day" (Josh, x, 12, 13).
"Behold, I [the Lord] will bring again the
shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in
the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So
The Bible and Science. 273
the sun returned ten degrees" (Isaiah xxxviii, 8).
The Bible teaches the geocentric theory that
the sun revolves around the earth ; Science
teaches the heliocentric theory that the earth
revolves around the sun.
Luther, accepting the Bible and rejecting
science, wrote :
" The fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the
entire science of Astronomy. But sacred Script-
ure tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to
stand still and not the earth."
" Biblical astronomy," says the celebrated
Jewish commentator, Dr. Kalisch, " is derived
from mere optical appearance."
ecology.
" In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth" (Gen. i, 1).
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth
grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree
yielding fruit" (i, 11):
" And God said, Let the waters bring forth
abundantly the moving creature that hath life,
and fowl that may fly above the earth " (i, 20).
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the
living creature after his kind, cattle and creep-
ing things" (i, 24).
" And God said, Let us make man in our
image" (i, 26).
"In six days the Lord made heaven and
earth" (Ex. xx, 11).
According V the Bible, the earth was created
274 Credibility of the Bible.
in six days about six thousand years ago. Geol-
ogy tells us that the earth was old six million
years ago.
To make room for the earth's development,
theologians now contend that a vast period of
time elapsed between the work recorded in the
first verse and in those following. To this
Bishop Colenso replies :
" We are plainly taught in the book of Genesis,
according to the simple, straightforward mean-
ing of the words, that Elohim created the heaven
and the earth in the beginning of these six days
— that is, taking into account the chronological
data of the Bible, about six thousand years
ago" (The Pentateuch, Part IV, p. 94).
Again, theologians claim that these six days
were not six literal days, but six long epochs
of time. The Rev. Moses Stuart, Professor of
Sacred Literature in Andover Theological Semi-
, nary, one of the ablest Hebrew scholars, says :
" When the sacred writer in Genesis i says,
the first day, the second day, etc., there can be
no possible doubt — none. . . . What puts
this beyond all question in philology is that the
writer says specifically, the evening and the
morning were the first day, the second day, etc.
Now, is an evening and a morning a period of
some thousands of years ? Is it, in any sense,
when so employed, an indefinite period ? The
answer is so plain and certain that I need not
repeat it. If Moses has given us an erroneous
account of the creation, so be it. Let it come
The Bible and Science. 275
out, and let us leave the whole. But do not let
us turn aside his language to get rid of difficul-
ties that we may have in our speculations."
The Jewish scholar, Dr. Kalisch, not only re-
jects this interpretation of the word day, but
admits that it would not reconcile Genesis with
science if allowed. He says :
" The device that the days denote epochs is
not only arbitrary, but ineffective, for the six
epochs of the Mosaic creation correspond in no
manner with the gradual formation of cosmos."
According to Genesis the creation of organic
life occupied but three of these six days. The
order of creation for these three days, or periods,
is as follows : 1. (3d day) Land plants ; 2. (5th
day) aquatic animals, birds ; 3. (6th day) Mam-
mals, reptiles, man.
Is this confirmed by science ? Passing Lyell
by, let us cite our more orthodox Dana. Dr.
Dana, who professed to believe that the study
of Geology tended " to strengthen faith in the
Book of books," gives the several geological
ages, together with the successive appearances
of organic life, as follows : 1. Archaean Age —
Lowest marine life, if any; 2. Silurian Age — In-
vertebrates, marine plants ; 3. Devonian Age —
Fish, earliest appearance of land plants; 4. Car-
boniferous Age — Luxuriant vegetation, lowest
forms of reptiles; 5. Reptilian Age — Highest
forms of reptiles ; 6. Tertiary Age — Birds, mam-
mals ; 7. Quatenary Age — Man.
Even Dana cannot reconcile Genesis with
276 Credibility of the Bible.
Geology. Genesis tells us that the earliest
organic life was terrestrial vegetation ; Geology
tells us that ages of organic life passed before
terrestrial plants appeared. Genesis tells us
that fish and fowls were created at the same
time ; Geology tells us that the finny tribes ex-
isted ages before the feathered tribes appeared.
Genesis tells us that mammals and reptiles were
created at the same time; Geology tells us that
while reptiles existed in the Carboniferous age,
mammals did not appear until the close of the
Reptilian age. Genesis tells us that birds ap-
peared before reptiles ; Geology tells us that
reptiles existed first. Genesis tells us that life
existed first upon the land ; Geology tells us
that the sea teemed with animal and vegetable
life ages before it appeared upon the land.
The seven ages of Geology comprise twenty-
five geological periods. Genesis recognizes but
six periods in the creation of the entire universe;
Geology recognizes twenty-five periods in the
formation of earth's crust alone. According
to Bible chronology, the universe is less than
six thousand years old ; according to Geology,
the mere existence of life upon earth's crust,
which is as but a day compared with the exist-
ence of the universe, is probably nearly fifty
millions of years. Dr. Dana says :
"If time from the commencement of the Silu-
rian included 48 millions of years, which some
geologists would pronounce much too low an
estimate, the Paleozoic part [Silurian, Devonian,
The Bible and Science. 277
and Carboniferous], according to the above
ratio, would comprise 36 millions, the Mesozoic
[Reptilian] 9 millions, and the Cenozoic [Ter-
tiary and Quaternary] 3 millions" (Text Book of
Geology, p. 329).
When Geology was in its infancy scientists
attempted to reconcile its teachings with the
teachings of the Bible. No scientist worthy of
the name attempts to reconcile them now.
Writing over thirty years ago, Carl Vogt
thus records the triumph of Geology over Gen-
esis :
"It is hardly twenty years since I learned
from Agassiz : transitional strata, palseozoic for-
mations— kingdom of fishes; there are no rep-
tiles in this period, and cannot be any, because
it would be contrary to the plan of creation ; sec-
ondary formations (Trias, Jura, chalk) — kingdom
of reptiles ; there are no mammals and cannot
be any, for the same reason ; tertiary strata —
kingdom of mammals ; there are no men and
cannot be any ; present creation — kingdom of
man. What is become of this plan of creation,
with its exclusiveness ? Reptiles in the Devo-
nian strata, reptiles in the coal, reptiles in the
Dyas. Farewell, kingdom of fish ! Mammals in
the Jura, mammals in Purbeck chalk, which
some reckon as the lowest chalk formation ;
good-by, kingdom of reptiles ! Men in the high-
est tertiary strata, men in the diluvial forms —
au revoir, kingdom of mammals 1"
278 Credibility of the Bible.
"The world also shall be stable, that it be not
moved " (1 Chron. xvi, 30).
" Who laid the foundations of the earth that
it should not be removed forever " (Ps. civ, 5).
" For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's,
and he hath set the world upon them " (1 Sam.
ii, 8).
" I saw four angels standing on the four cor-
ners of the earth " (Rev. vii, 1).
" The devil taketh him up into an exceeding
high mountain, and sheweth him all the king-
doms of the world " (Matt, iv, 8).
The science of Geography describes the earth
as spherical in form, with a daily revolution
on its axis and an annual revolution around the
sun. The Bible describes it as stable, flat, and
angular.
" And a river went out of Eden to water the
garden ; and from thence it was parted, and be-
came into four heads.
"The name of the first is Pison" [Indus or
Ganges] (Gen. ii, 10, 11).
" And the name of the second river is Gihon
[Nile]: the same is it that compasseth the whole
land of Ethiopia.
" And the name of the third river is Hiddekel
Tigris]: . . . And the fourth river is Eu-
phrates " (ii, 13, 14).
Bible geography makes the Nile and the Eu-
phrates both branches of the same river.
The Bible and Science. 279
"Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which
is called Sychar" (John iv, 5).
Samaria contained no city of this name.
" These things were done in Bethany beyond
Jordan" (John i, 28, New Ver.).
Bethany was a suburb of Jerusalem and not
located beyond the Jordan.
" He departed from Galilee, and came into the
coasts of J udea beyond Jordan " (Matt, xix, 1).
The dead sea and the Jordan formed the
eastern boundary of Judea, and no coasts of
Judea existed beyond the Jordan.
" Which was of Bethsaida of Galilee " (John
xii, 21).
Bethsaida was not of Galilee, but of Perea.
Botany.
"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb
yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yield-
ing fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his
kind" (Gen. i, 12).
" And the evening and the morning were the
third day " (i, 13).
" And God made two great lights ; the greater
light to rule the day " (i, 16).
" And the evening and the morning were the
fourth day " (i, 19).
The Bible states that the earth was covered
with vegetation, that grass and herbs and trees
flourished without the heat and light of the
sun. Science denies it.
" Cursed is the ground for thy sake. . . .
280 Credibility of the Bible.
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to
thee " (Gen. iii, 17, 18).
Thorns and thistles are represented as result-
ing from a curse. They are no more the result
of a curse than are grapes and corn.
" And again he sent forth the dove out of the
ark; and the dove came in to him in the evening;
and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked
off" (Gen. viii, 10, 11).
Hebrew commentators state that it was a fresh
olive leaf. The Bible writer supposes that the
earth could be submerged for nearly a year with-
out the vegetable kingdom being destroyed.
Had this deluge really occurred, all vegetation,
save, perhaps, a few aquatic plants, would have
died.
" He planteth an ash, and the rain doth nour-
ish it " (Is. xliv, 14).
Not in Western Asia, for the tree does not
grow there. Bible commentators believe that
the pine is meant.
The authors of Genesis (xxx, 37) and Ezekiel
(xxxi, 8) both mention the chestnut-tree. But
it is admitted that the chestnut did not grow
where they stated. Referring to this error,
Smith's Bible Dictionary says: "The 'plane-
tree' ought probably to have been substituted.
The context of the passages where the word oc-
curs indicates some tree which thrives best in
low and rather moist situations, whereas the
chestnut-tree is a tree which prefers dry and
hilly ground."
The Bible and Science. 281
" Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground
and die, it abideth alone : but if it die, it bring-
eth forth much fruit" (John xii, 24).
If it die it bringeth forth no fruit.
Zoology.
" Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not
clean, and of fowls, and of everything that creep-
eth upon the earth, there went in two and two
[or by sevens of clean according to another ac-
count] unto Noah into the ark " (Gen. vii, 8, 9).
The animal kingdom, including insects, etc.,
comprises more than 1,000,000 species. Accord-
ing to the Bible, two or more of every species
from every clime — polar animals accustomed to
a temperature of fifty degrees below zero, and
tropical, to one hundred degrees above — were
brought together and preserved for a year in an
ark. If the teachings of Natural History be
true, this Bible story is false.
The Bible pronounces unclean and unfit for
food the following animals:
"The camel, because he cheweth the cud, but
divideth not the hoof " (Lev. xi, 4).
" The coney, because he cheweth the cud, but
divideth not the hoof " (xi, v).
" The hare, because he cheweth the cud, but
divideth not the hoof " (xi, 6).
" The swine, though he divideth the hoof, and
be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud"
(xi, 7).
Every statement proclaims the writer's igno-
rance of the simple facts of Zoology. The
282 Credibility of the Bible.
camel does divide the hoof ; the coney does
not chew the cud ; the hare does not chew the
cud; the swine is not cloven-footed (bisulcate),
but four-toed.
"All ruminants have the foot cleft, and they only
have it" — Cuvier.
" Every one of the four instances or illustra-
tions brought forward by the Biblical writer is
necessarily erroneous; any attempt at defending
them implies an impotent struggle against Sci-
ence."— Dr. Kalisch.
Scarcely less erroneous are the following pas-
sages: "And these are they which ye shall have
in abomination among the fowls: . . . the
stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing
and the bat.
"All fowls that creep, going upon all four,
shall be an abomination unto you.
" Yet these may ye eat of every flying creep-
ing thing that goeth upon all four, which have
legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the
earth;
" Even these of them may ye eat : the locust
after his kind, and the bald locust after his
kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the
grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying
creeping things, which have four feet, shall be
an abomination unto you " (Lev. xi, 13-23).
"And the Lord said unto the serpent, Be-
cause thou hast done this, thou art cursed above
all cattle, and above every beast of the field;
upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt
The Bible and Science. 283
thou eat all the days of thy life " (Gen. iii, 14).
The serpent does not eat dust, while Science
shows that it crawled upon its belly before the
curse just as it did afterward.
ethnology.
According to the Bible, all mankind have
sprung from a single pair created by God six
thousand years ago. Science does not admit
that man is the result of a divine creative act,
that all the races have descended from a single
pair, or that his existence here is confined to
the brief period of sixty centuries. She is not
able to tell yet, even approximately, when man's
advent upon the earth occurred, but she has
long since proved the Biblical record false, and
shown that instead of his having occupied the
earth but six thousand years he has been here
at the least from ten to fifty times six thousand
years.
Referring to the Biblical origin of man, Pro-
fessor Huxley says: " Five-sixths of the public
are taught this Adamitic monogenism as if it
were an established truth, and believe it. I do
not; and I am not acquainted with any man of
science, or duly instructed person, who does "
(Methods and Results of Ethnology).
"There were giants in the earth in those
days " (Gen. vi, 4).
The Bible, like the mythical records of other
early nations, represents the earth as peopled
with a race of giants. Yet the stature of man
284 Credibility of the Bible.
is as great to-day as it was five thousand years
ago.
" And all the days that Adam lived were nine
hundred and thirty years" (Gen. v, 5).
The Bible says that for a period of two thou-
sand years men lived for centuries, that at least
seven patriarchs attained to an age of nearly
1,000 years. The Egyptian records of that
period show that man's longevity was no greater
then than it is now.
Not only the size and age of men, but their
numbers are exaggerated by Bible writers. The
Israelites, at the time they settled in Palestine,
numbered, it is claimed, two or three millions.
Out of this country, to make room for them, God
cast " seven nations greater and mightier than"
the Israelite nation (Deut. vii, 1). Palestine
must then have sustained a population as great
as Spain does now with a territory thirty times
as large.
The census of Israel and Judah, taken in the
time of David, places the number of warriors at
1,570,000 (1 Ch. xxi, 5). This makes the whole
population twice as great as that of Illinois with
an area nine times as large as Palestine and a
soil ten times as fertile.
" And the whole earth was of one language,
and of one speech " (Gen. xi, 1):
" Let us go down, and there confound their
language, that they may not understand one an-
other's speech " (Gen. xi, 7).
The origin of the various languages of men is
The Bible and Science. 285
here attributed to a miraculous confusion of
tongues. Science shows that languages had no
such origin. Eenan says :
" Far from placing unity at the beginning of
language, it is necessary to look at such a unity
as the slow and tardy result of an advanced civ-
ilization. In the beginning there were as many
dialects as families."
This Bible account of the confusion of tongues
is contradicted by the preceding chapter of Gen-
esis (x, 5, 20, 31), which, referring to the chil-
dren of Japheth, Ham, and Shem, says they
were divided " every one after his tongue," " af-
ter their families, after their tongues."
Physiology.
"And the ark rested in the seventh month . .
upon the mountains of Ararat" (Gen. viii, 4).
" And in the second month [of the following
year] was the earth dried " (viii, 14).
Here on the top of Ararat, three miles above
the surrounding country, and three thousand
feet above the region of perpetual snow, for
months, the respiratory organs of man and all
the animals of earth performed ther functions
without difficulty !
" Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts ?"
(Matt, ix, 4).
"What reason ye in your hearts ?" (Luke v,
22).
Jesus recognizes the heart as the seat of rea-
son and intelligence.
286 Credibility of the Bible.
" In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children "
(Gen. iii, 16).
" She was found with child of the Holy-
Ghost " (Matt, i, 18).
" Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit "
(Mark v, 8).
" And the prayer of faith shall save the sick "
(James v, 15).
Attributing the pains of parturition to a curse,
recording the generation of a child without a
natural father, ascribing nervous and other dis-
orders to demons, and healing the sick by
prayer are Biblical, but not scientific.
" And all the first-born males [of Israel] . . .
were twenty and two thousand two hundred and
three score and thirteen" (Num. iii, 43).
As the population of Israel was about 3,000,
000, this would give 130 persons to each family
and an average of 128 children to each mother.
Faith may accept this, but physiological science
rejects it.
Chemistry.
" And he lifted up the rod and smote the
waters that were in the river, . . . and all
the waters that were in the river were turned to
blood " (Ex. vii, 20).
" Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-pota
with water. And they filled them up to the
brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now
and bear unto the governor of the feast. And
they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had
The Bible and Science. 287
tasted the water that was made wine," etc.
(John ii, 7-9).
" But his wife looked back from behind him,
and she became a pillar of salt" (Gen. xix, 26).
" And he took the [golden] calf which they
had made and burnt it in the fire, and ground it
to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and
made the children of Israel drink of it" (Ex.
xxxii, 20).
Turning a river into blood, water into wine,
flesh into salt, and burning and grinding gold
into powder and holding it in solution, cannot be
harmonized with the teachings of science.
But it is not merely to a few Biblical pas-
sages, to a few so-called miraculous changes in
the elements of nature, that the science of
chemistry is opposed. It is opposed to the entire
Bible as a divine revelation. The central ideas
of this book, a Creator, a Providence, and a
Mediator, are all overthrown by this science.
Referring to this, Comte truthfully observes :
" However imperfect our chemical science is,
its development kas operated largely in the
emancipation of the human m$njl. Its opposi-
tion to all theological philosophy is marked by
two general facts, . . . first the prevision
of phenomena, and next our voluntary modifica-
tion of them " (Positive Philosophy, Book IV.,
chap. i).
" In this way, Chemistry effectually discredits
the notion of the rule of Providential will among
its phenomena. But there is another way in
288 Credibility of the Bible.
which it acts no less strongly : by abolishing
the idea ... of creation in nature " (Ibid).
Physics.
"I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall
be for a token of a covenant between me and
the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I
bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall
be seen in the cloud: and I will remember my
covenant, which is between me and you and
every living creature of all flesh; and the waters
shall no more become a flood, to destroy all
flesh " (Gen. ix, 13-15).
The Bible writer did not know that it was the
refraction and reflection of the sun's rays on
the drops of water which produced the pris-
matic colors of the rainbow; he did not know
that the phenomenon was as old as rain and
sunshine, but believed it to be a postdiluvian
sign thrown on the dark canvas of clouds by
the Almighty.
" It seems plain," says the Bishop of Natal,
"that the writer supposes the bow to have been
seen for the first time when the deluge was over."
" The words which Moses spake unto all Is-
rael" (Deut. i, 1).
"And Moses called all Israel and said unto
them" (v, 1).
" There was not a word of all that Moses com-
manded, which Joshua read not before all the
congregation of Israel " (Josh, viii, 35).
Nature's temple must have possessed wonder-
The Bible and Science. 289
ful acoustic properties to enable Moses and
Joshua to reach the ears of a multitude of three
millions.
" Let us build a city, and a tower, whose top
may reach unto heaven " (Gen. xi, 4).
God himself, ignorant of pneumatics, believes
the project possible, and confounds their lan-
guage to prevent it.
"And the waters were divided. And the chil-
dren of Israel went into the midst of the sea
upon the dry ground: and the waters were as a
wall unto them on the right hand, and on their
left "(Ex. xiv, 21, 22).
A fundamental principle of hydrostatics is the
following: "When a pressure is exerted on any
part of the surface of a liquid, that pressure is
transmitted undiminished to all parts of the
mass, and in all directions."
mathematics.
"For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost: and these three are one " (1 John v, 7).
" The incomprehensible jargon of the Trinita-
rian arithmetic, that three are one and one is
three!" — Thomas Jefferson.
Matthew concludes his genealogy of Jesus as
follows:
" So all the generations from Abraham to
David are fourteen generations; and from David
until the carrying away into Babylon are four-
teen generations; and from the carrying away
290 Credibility of the Bible.
into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen genera-
tions " (Matt, i, 17).
This genealogy, including both Abraham and
Jesus, contains but forty-one generations. Here
we have an inspired scholar performing the
mathematical solution of dividing forty-one
generations by three and obtaining fourteen
generations for a quotient.
" The whole congregation together was forty
and two thousand three hundred and three
score " (Ezra ii, 64).
This number, 42,360, is given as the whole
number of persons belonging to the families that
returned from Babylon. Adding together the
numbers given in the census register, of which
the above is declared to be the sum.total, we
find the whole number to be only 29,818 — a
difference and a discrepancy of 12,542.
The foregoing are but three of three hundred
mathematical errors to be found in the Bible.
It is not merely in a few unimportant scien-
tific details, but in the fundamental principles
of the most important sciences — of astronomy,
of geology, of geography, and of man — that the
Bible errs. Its writers evince no divine knowl-
edge of the facts of nature. Their works ex-
hibit the crude notions of the age in which they
lived. Some of their teachings are in harmony
with the accepted truths of Science; but these
prove no more than a human origin. The wisest
of mankind do not know all; the most ignorant
know something. While there are phenomena
The Bible and Science. 291
too complex for the mind of a Newton or a
Darwin to grasp, there are others regarding
which the first impressions of a child are cor-
rect.
To assert that the Bible is in harmony with
the teachings of Modern Science is to assert that
no advancement has been made in Science for
two thousand years, when all know that many
of the most marvelous scientific discoveries are
less than two hundred years old. The sci-
entific attainments of Bible writers were not
above those of the age and country in which
they lived, and probably far below; for the
Bible is largely the work of theologians, and
theologians have ever been behind their age in
scientific knowledge. The mission of theolo-
gians is not to advance, but to retard Science.
They have waged a relentless but ineffective
warfare against it. In the words of Huxley:
" Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle
of every science, as the strangled snakes beside
that of Hercules."
" The Hebrew Pentateuch," says Gerald Mas-
sey, "has not only retarded the growth of
science for eighteen centuries, but the ignorant
believers in it as a book of revelation have tried
to strangle every science at its birth. There
could be and was but little or no progress in
Astronomy, Geology, Biology, or Sociology until
its teachings were repudiated by the more en-
lightened among men."
Of the Bible and Science thus writes Ameri-
292 Credibility of the Bible.
ca's eminent scientist and author, Dr. John W.
Draper :
"It is to be regretted that the Christian
church has burdened itself with the defense of
these books, and voluntarily made itself answer-
able for their manifest contradictions and er-
rors. . . . Still more, it is to be deeply-
regretted that the Pentateuch, a production so
imperfect as to be unable to stand the touch of
modern criticism, should be put forth as the
arbiter of science" (Conflict Between Religion
and Science, p. 225).
"The world is not to be discovered through
the vain traditions that have brought down
to us the opinions of men who lived in the
morning of civilization, nor in the dreams of
mystics who thought that they were inspired"
(Ibid, p. 33).
"For her [Science] the volume of inspiration
is the book of Nature, of which the open scroll
is ever spread forth before the eyes of every
man. Confronting all, it needs no societies for
its dissemination. Infinite iu extent, eternal in
duration, human ambition and human fanaticism
have never been able to tamper with it. On the
earth it is illustrated by all that is magnificent
and beautiful, on the heavens its letters are
suns and worlds " (lb., p. 227).
Prophecies. 293
CHAPTEE XXII.
PROPHECIES.
"Prophecy is a demonstration of divine knowl-
edge ; as miracles, in the restricted acceptation
of the word, are a demonstration of divine
power. Prophecies being true, revelation is
established as a fact." — Keith.
" The predictions respecting Christ are so
clear, so detailed and circumstantial, as to con-
stitute together one of the most important proofs
of the inspiration of the Bible and of the truth
of Christianity." — Hitchcock.
A prophet, according to the orthodox and
popular signification of the term, is one who
predicts. A prophecy is a prediction, and the
writings of the prophets are a collection of pre-
dictions regarding future events. Prophet and
prophecy, as used in the Bible, have no such
meaning. The prophet might make a predic-
tion, just as any one may make a prediction,
but this was not necessarily any part of his
office. The functions of the prophet were those
of preacher, poet, and musician. There were
not merely a score of them, but thousands of
them. The more talented prophets became
294 Credibility of the Bible.
authors — composed the poems, recorded the
history, and wrote the religious works of the
Hebrews. Some of these prophets were moral
reformers — labored earnestly to reform their
people. The wicked were exhorted to forsake
their sins, and threatened with divine retribu-
tion if they did not. When their countrymen
were in bondage they consoled them with the
promise that God would liberate them. The
oppressed and the captive longed for a deliv-
erer. The prophet gave utterance to these
longings, and this gave birth to the Messianic
idea.
The more important of these so-called proph-
ecies will now be examined.
1.
"And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the
beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as
when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It
shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be
dwelt in from generation to generation ; neither
shall the Arabian pitch tent there ; neither shall
the shepherds make their fold there. But wild
beasts of the desert shall lie there ; and their
houses shall be full of doleful creatures ; and
owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance
there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall
cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in
their pleasant palaces ; and her time is near to
come, and her days shall not be prolonged "
(Isaiah xiii, 19-22).
Prophecies. 295
Had this prophecy been literally fulfilled, it
would not have evinced supernatural prescience
on the part of the prophet. It is the fate of
cities to flourish for a time and then decay.
The world contains the ruins, not of Babylon
alone, but of a thousand cities.
The enemies of Babylon wished for and hoped
for its destruction. The prophet voiced that
wish and hope. Perhaps at that very moment
the victorious armies of the Persian were level-
ing its walls.
But this prophecy has not been literally ful-
filled. Babylon was not as when God overthrew
Sodom and Gomorrah ; it has been inhabited ;
it has been dwelt in from generation to genera-
tion ; the Arabian has pitched his tent there ;
shepherds have made their fold there ; satyrs
have not danced there ; dragons have not occu-
pied her palaces; her days were prolonged.
The ancient glory of Babylon has faded, but a
thriving city still exists there, a standing refuta-
tion of the claim that Isaiah's prophecy has
been fulfilled.
2.
" For thus saith the Lord God : Behold I will
bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar [Nebuchad-
nezzar], king of Babylon. . . . With the
hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all
thy streets : he shall slay thy people by the
sword, and thy strong garrison shall go down to
the ground. And they shall make a spoil of thy
296 Credibility of the Bible.
riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise.
. . And I will make thee like the top of a
rock : thou shalt be a place to spread nets
upon ; thou shalt be built no more : for I the
Lord have spoken it " (Ezekiel xxvi, 7, 11, 12>
14).
Here is a specific prediction. But it was not
fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy, nor
even conquer, Tyre. " He reduced the whole
sea coast except Tyre, which stood a thirteen
years' siege by water and by land, ending, not in
subjection, but . . . leaving the native sov-
ereigns on their thrones and their wealth and
power untouched " (Chambers's Encyclopedia).
A thousand years after Ezekiel uttered his
prophecy, Jerome, the foremost Christian of
his age, declared it to be "the most noble and
beautiful city in Phoenicia." Twenty-four hun-
dred years have passed, and Tyre still sur-
vives.
3.
"Behold, Damascus is taken away from being
a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap " (Isaiah
xvii, 1).
This prophecy was spoken nearly twenty-
seven hundred years ago, and yet during all
these centuries Damascus has flourished, and
is to-day the most prosperous city of Western
Asia.
4.
" And I will make the land of Egypt utterly
waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene
Prophecies. 297
even unto the borders of Ethiopia. No foot of
man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast
shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhab-
ited forty years" (Ezekiel xxix, 10, 11).
This and a score of other prophecies concern-
ing Egypt have never been fulfilled.
5.
" For thus Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die by
the sword, and Israel shall surely be led
away captive out of their own land " (Amos vii,
11).
Jeroboam did not not die by the sword, and
Israel was not led away captive, as predicted.
" And the Lord said not that he would blot out
the name of Israel from under heaven : but he
saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of
Joash. Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam and
all that he did, and his might, how he warred,
and how he recovered Damascus and Hamath,
which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they
not written in the book of the Chronicles of the
Kings of Israel? And Jeroboam slept with his
fathers, even with the kings of Israel " (2 Kings
xiv, 27-29).
6.
" Thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of
Judah : He shall have none to sit upon the
throne of David ; and his dead body shall be
cast out in the day to the heat and in the night
to the frost" (Jeremiah xxxvi, 30).
This prophecy was not fulfilled. " So Je-
298 Credibility of the Bible.
hoiakim slept with his fathers : And Jehoi-
achin his son reigned in his stead " (2 Kings
xxiv, 6).
7.
" And this whole land shall be a desolation
and an astonishment ; and these nations shall
serve the King of Babylon seventy years" (Jere-
miah xxv, 11).
It is now conceded by all critics that the book
of Jeremiah, as a whole, was not composed be-
fore the Captivity. But even if these words were
uttered before the Captivity, they are fatal to
the claim of Bible inerrancy ; for either the
prophecy was not fulfilled, or Bible history is
false. According to the historical books of the
Bible, the Captivity did not last seventy, but
only about fifty years.
Referring to this and similar prophecies, Mat-
thew Arnold says : " The great prophecies of
Isaiah and Jeremiah are, critics can now see,
not strictly predictions at all " (Literature and
Dogma, p, 114).
8.
" And the Lord shall scatter thee among all
people, from the one end of the earth even unto
the other" (Deut. xxviii, 64).
These words were uttered, not as a prophecy,
but as a warning or threat. If they obey the
Lord's statutes a long list of blessings are
promised ; if they do not obey them, a hundred
evils are threatened, among which is the one
Prophecies. 299
quoted. One of the most dreaded and one of
the most common calamities in that age was the
conquest or dispersion of one tribe or nation by
another. In an enumeration of all known evils,
it would be strange if this, the one most often
threatened, had been omitted.
9.
" Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a
son, and shall call his name Immanuel " (Isaiah
vii, 14).
This is cited as a prophecy of Jesus Christ.
The only thing in it suggestive of the story of
Jesus is the word " virgin." The word thus
translated, however, does not necessarily mean
virgin in the common acceptation of this term,
but simply " young woman," either married or
single. Correct this error and the text reads :
"Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and
bear a son." All that is suggestive of the mi-
raculous conception vanishes. But this is not
the only error. The forms of the verbs have
been changed. The passage should read as fol-
lows : " Behold, a young woman is with child
and beareth a son." The woman was with child
when the prophet wrote. This precludes the
possibility of a reference to Jesus Christ. Not
only this, the context utterly forbids it. All the
events named by the prophet, including the
birth of this child, occurred more than seven
hundred years before Christ.
Michaelis rejects this prophecy. He says : "I
300 Credibility of the Bible.
cannot be persuaded that the famous prophecy
in Isaiah (chap, vii, 14) has the least reference
to the Messiah."
10.
" I will raise unto David a righteous Branch,
and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall
execute judgment and justice in the earth. In
his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall
dwell safely: and this is his name whereby Le
shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHT-
EOUSNESS " (Jer. xxiii, 5, 6).
The correct rendering of this passage is as
follows :
"I will raise unto David a righteous branch,
and a king shall reign and prosper, and shall
execute judgment and justice in the land. In
his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall
dwell safely; and this is the name whereby they
shall call themselves : The Eternal is our right-
eousness."
In order to make a Messianic prophecy of
this passage and give it effect, no less than eight
pieces of trickery are employed : 1. The word
"branch "is made to begin with a capital letter.
2. The word " king " also begins with a capital.
3. "The name" is rendered "his name." 4.
The pronoun " they," relating to the people of
Judah and Israel, is changed to " he." 5. The
word "Eternal " is translated " Lord." 6. "The
Lord our righteousness" is printed in capitals.
7. In the table of contents at the head of the
Prophecies. 301
chapter are the words " Christ shall rule and
save them." 8. At the top of the page are the
words " Christ promised."
11.
" The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
. . . until Shiloh come; and unto him shall
the gathering of the people be " (Gen. xlix, 10).
The meaning of Shiloh being somewhat ob-
scure, it was made to apply to Christ. It is now
known that Shiloh was the national sanctuary
before the Jews occupied Jerusalem. A correct
translation of the passage reads as follows :
" The pre-eminence shall not depart from
Judah so long as the people resort to Shiloh;
and the nations shall obey him."
But even if the writer meant " The sceptre
shall not depart from Judah until Christ
comes," as claimed, the prediction was not ful-
filled; for the sceptre departed from Judah six
hundred years before Christ came.
12.
" For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is
given : and the government shall be upon his
shoulder: and his name shall be declared Won-
derful, Counsellor, The mighty God, the ever-
lasting Father, the Prince of Peace " (Isaiah
ix, 6).
This passage, even if genuine, is not applica-
ble to Jesus Christ. But it is not genuine. Pro-
fessor Cheyne, the highest authority on Isaiah,
pronounces it a forgery.
302 Credibility of the Bible.
13.
"Know therefore and understand that from
the going forth of the commandment to restore
and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the
Prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score
and two weeks " (Daniel viii, 25).
It is claimed that " week " here means a
period of seven years, and assumed, of course,
that by Messiah is meant Christ. Seven weeks
and three score and two weeks are sixty-nine
weeks, or 483 years, the time that was to elapse
from the command to rebuild Jerusalem to the
coming of Christ, if the prophecy was fulfilled.
The decree of Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem and
the temple was made 536 b c. According to the
accepted chronology, Christ was born 4 B.C.
From the decree of Cyrus, then, to the coming
of Christ was 532 years instead of 483, a period
of seven weeks, or forty-nine years, longer than
that named by Daniel.
Ezra, the priest, went to Jerusalem 457 B.C.
This event, however, had nothing whatever to
do with the decree for rebuilding Jerusalem
and the temple. It occurred 79 years after the
decree was issued, and 58 years after the temple
was finished. But a searcher for Messianic
prophecies found that from the time of Ezra to
the beginning of Christ's ministry was about
483 years, or 69 prophetic weeks; and notwith-
standing there was a deficiency of 79 years at
one end of the period, and an excess of 30 years
at the other, it was declared to fit exactly.
Prophecies. 303
14.
"The days shall come, in the which there
shall not be left one stone [of the temple] upon
another, that shall not be thrown down."
" And they shall fall by the edge of the sword,
and shall be led away captive into all nations :
and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the
Gentiles " (Luke xxi, 6, 24).
It has been shown that the books containing
this so-called prophecy of Jesus were written
one hundred years after the conquest and de-
struction of Jerusalem.
15.
" The sun shall be darkened, and the moon
shall not give her light. And the stars of
heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in
heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they
see the Son of man coming in the clouds with
great power and glory. . . . Verily I say
unto you, That this generation shall not pass,
till all these things be done " (Mark xiii, 24^26,
30).
That generation did pass, and more than
eighteen centuries have followed, and yet the
Son of man has not come and these things have
not been done. Christ was a false prophet.
16.
" And the woman was arrayed in purple and
scarlet. . . . And upon her forehead was a
name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the
Mother of Harlots " (Kevelation xvii, 4, 5).
304 Credibility of tiie Bible.
Protestant churches have no difficulty in rec-
ognizing in this Mother of Harlots the Church
of Rome, apparently forgetting that they are her
daughters.
The following, relative to Bible prophecies, is
from the pen of William Rathbone Greg :
" A prophecy, in the ordinary acceptation of
the term, signifies a prediction of future events
which could not have been foreseen by human
sagacity, aDd the knowledge of which was super-
naturally communicated to the prophet. It is
clear, therefore, that in order to establish the
claim of any anticipatory statement, promise, or
denunciation to the rank and title of a proph-
ecy, four points must be ascertained with pre-
cision, viz., what the event was to which the al-
leged prediction was intended to refer; that the
prediction was uttered in specific, not vague,
language before the event; that the event took
place specifically, not loosely, as predicted; and
that it could not have been foreseen by human
sagacity."
"It is probably not too much to affirm that
we have no instance in the prophetical books of
the Old Testament of a prediction in the case of
which we possess, at once and combined, clear
and unsuspicious proof of the date, the precise
event predicted, the exact circumstances of that
event, and the inability of human sagacity to
foresee it. There is no case in which we can
say with certainty — even where it is reasonable
to suppose that the prediction was uttered be-
Prophecies. 305
fore the event — that the narrative has not been
tampered with to suit the prediction, or the pre-
diction modified to correspond with the event "
(Creed of Christendom, pp. 128, 131.)
306 Credibility of the Bible.
CHAPTER XXIII.
MIRACLES.
That curious volume of exaggerated fiction
known as the Baron Munchausen stories has
delighted many. Works of this character fill a
legitimate place in literature. The humorists
have contributed much to the health and hap-
piness of mankind.
A charming store of wit and humor of the
Munchausen variety is to be found in the Bible.
Here are a thousand and one stories as marvel-
ous and amusing as are to be found in the
whole realm of modern fiction.
Unfortunately those who profess to value this
book the most derive the least benefit from it.
They mistake the meaning and purpose of its
writers. They accept as facts its most palpable
fictions. Its most laughable stories are read
with the most solemn visages. This serious
method of treating the ridiculous has produced
an army of morose dyspeptics who mistake in-
digestion for religion, and intolerance for virtue.
To afford a little relaxation from the duller
chapters of this work, to furnish a few grains of
pepsin to aid in the digestion of a Sunday din-
Miracles. 307
ner, a small collection of these funny tales of
ancient wits — the Baron Munchausen writers of
old times — is given. He who can read them
without a smile must be either dull of compre-
hension or without appreciation of humor.
Che first Cutlet.
PRACTICAL JOKE PLAYED UPON A SLEEPY MAN BY HIS
FACETIOUS CREATOR.
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the
man should be alone. I will make him an help
meet for him. . . . And the Lord God caused
a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and
he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh
instead thereof. And the rib which the Lord God
had taken from man, made he a woman, and
brought her unto the man (Gen. ii, 18, 21, 22).
ClK Great Treslwt.
A STORY CALCULATED TO PARALYZE A KENTUCKY COLONEL.
The same day were all the fountains of the
great deep broken up, and the windows of
heaven were opened. And the rain was upon
the earth forty days and forty nights.
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the
earth; and all the high hills, that were under
the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits
upward did the waters prevail; and the moun-
tains were covered (Gen. vii, 11, 12, 19, 20).
RingstreaRed, Speckled, and Spotted.
THE DOCTRINE OF PRENATAL INFLUENCES LAUGHABLY BUR-
LESQUED.
And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and
of the hazel and chestnut tree; and pilled white
308 Credibility of the Bible.
streaks in them, and made the white appear
which was in the rods. And he set the rods
which he had pilled before the flocks in the
gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks
came to drink, that they should conceive when
they came to drink. And the flocks conceived
before the rods, and brought forth cattle ring-
streaked, speckled, and spotted (Gen. xxx, 37-
39).
CDc Waters Ulcrc Divided.
MOSES TELLS, WITH A WINK, ABOUT THE STRONGEST GALE
OF WIND KNOWN TO HISTORY.
And Moses stretched out his hand over the
sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by
a strong east wind all that night, and made the
sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And
the children of Israel went into the midst of
the sea upon the dry ground; and the waters
were a wall unto them on their right hand, and
on their left (Ex. xiv, 21, 22).
QUdiiS ! ! !
THE MODERN BIRD HUNTER WILL SAY: " I LOVE A LIAR, BUT
THIS ONE SUITS ME TOO WgLL ! "
And there went forth a wind from the Lord,
and brought quails from the sea, and let them
fall by the camp, as it were a day's journey on
this side, and as it were a day's journey on the
other side, round about the camp, and as it
were two cubits high upon the face of the earth.
And the people stood up all that day, and all
that night, and all the next day, and they
gathered the quails: he that gathered least gath-
Miracles. 309
ered ten homers [over 100 bushels] (Num. xi,
31, 32).
three Good Snake Stories.
"wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging."
And the Lord said unto him [Moses], What is
that in thine hand? And he said, A rod. And
he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it
on the ground, and it became a serpent; and
Moses fled from before it. And the Lord said
unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it
by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and
caught it, and it became a rod in his hand (Ex.
iv, 2-4).
And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the
people, and they bit the people; and much peo-
ple of Israel died. . . . And the Lord said
unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set
it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that
every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon
it shall live. And Moses made a serpent of
brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to
pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when
he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived (Num.
xxi, 6, 8, 9).
And Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh,
and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
Then Pharoah also called the wise men and the
sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they
also did in like manner with their enchantments.
For they cast down every man his rod and they
became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up
their rods (Ex. vii, 10-12).
310 Credibility of the Bible.
more of Aaron's Cricks.
INCLUDING, AMONG OTHERS, ONE VERY LOUSY TRICK.
And be [Aaron] lifted up the rod and smote
the waters that were in the river, in the sight of
Pharaoh and in the sight of the servants; and
all the waters that were in the river were turned
to blood (Ex. vii, 20).
And Aaron stretched out his hand over the
waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up and cov-
ered the land of Egypt (viii, 6,).
Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod
and smote the dust of the earth, and it became
lice in man and in beast; all the dust of the land
became lice throughout all the land of Egypt
(viii, 17).
Cbc Sun Stood Still.
"IS NOT THIS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF JASHIR?"
And he [Joshua] said in the sight of Israel,
Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou,
moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun
stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people
had avenged themselves upon their enemies.
Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So
the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and
hasted not to go down about a whole day (Josh.
x, 12, 13).
Samson's Teats.
AS DESCRIBED BY THE HUMORIST WHO WROTE THE BOOK OF
JUDGES.
And he [Samson] found a new jawbone of an
ass, and put forth his hand and took it, and
Miracles. 311
slew a thousand men therewith. And Samson
said. With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon
heaps, with the jawbone of an ass have I slain a
thousand men (Judges xv, 15, 16).
And Samson went and caught three hundred
foxes, and took firebrands, and turned tail to
tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between
two tails. And when he had set the brands on
fire, he let them go into the standing corn of
the Philistines and burnt up both the shocks,
and also the standing corn, with the vineyards
and olives (Judges xv, 4, 5).
ClK Coquacious flss.
REMARKS OF A QUADRUPED THAT STOOD ON HER RECORD!
And Balaam rose up in the morning, and sad-
dled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.
.... And when the ass saw the angel of
the Lord, she fell down under Balaam : and
Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the
ass with a staff. And the Lord opened the
mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam,
What have I done unto thee that thou hast
smitten me these three times ? And Balaam
said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked
me : I would there were a sword in mine hand,
for now would I kill thee. And the ass said
unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which
thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto
this day? Was I ever wont to do so unto
thee ? And he said, Nay (Num. xxii, 21, 27-30).
310 Credibility of the Bible.
more of Aaron's tricks.
INCLUDING, AMONG OTHERS, ONE VERY LOUSY TRICK.
And he [Aaron] lifted up the rod and smote
the waters that were in the river, in the sight of
Pharaoh and in the sight of the servants; and
all the waters that were in the river were turned
to blood (Ex. vii, 20).
And Aaron stretched out his hand over the
waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up and cov-
ered the land of Egypt (viii, 6,).
Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod
and smote the dust of the earth, and it became
lice in man and in beast; all the dust of the land
became lice throughout all the land of Egypt
(viii, 17).
Che Sun Stood Still.
"IS NOT THIS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF JASHIR?"
And he [Joshua] said in the sight of Israel,
Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou,
moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun
stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people
had avenged themselves upon their enemies.
Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So
the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and
hasted not to go down about a whole day (Josh,
x, 12, 13).
Samson's Teats.
AS DESCRIBED BY THE HUMORIST WHO WROTE THE BOOK OF
JUDGES.
And he [Samson] found a new jawbone of an
ass, and put forth his hand and took it, and
Miracles. 311
slew a thousand men therewith. And Samson
said. With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon
heaps, with the jawbone of an ass have I slain a
thousand men (Judges xv, 15, 16).
And Samson went and caught three hundred
foxes, and took firebrands, and turned tail to
tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between
two tails. And when he had set the brands on
fire, he let them go into the standing corn of
the Philistines and burnt up both the shocks,
and also the standing corn, with the vineyards
and olives (Judges xv, 4, 5).
Che Loquacious J\$$.
REMARKS OF A QUADRUPED THAT STOOD ON HER RECORD!
And Balaam rose up in the morning, and sad-
dled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.
'. . . . And when the ass saw the angel of
the Lord, she fell down under Balaam : and
Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the
ass with a staff. And the Lord opened the
mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam,
What have I done unto thee that thou hast
smitten me these three times ? And Balaam
said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked
me : I would there were a sword in mine hand,
for now would I kill thee. And the ass said
unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which
thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto
this day? Was I ever wont to do so unto
thee ? And he said, Nay (Num. xxii, 21, 27-30).
312 Credibility of the Bible.
B Bear Story.
EDIFYING TALE OF A BALDHEADED MAN, SOME NAUGHTY CHIL-
DREN, AND TWO BEARS. ■
And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto
Beth-el : and as he was going up by the way,
there came forth little children out of the city,
and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up,
thou baldhead ; go up, thou baldhead. And he
turned back and looked on them, and cursed
them in the name of the Lord. And there came
forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tare
forty and two children of them (2- Kings ii, 23,
24).
Cbc Boy Sneezed.
HOW A PROPHET'S WHISKERS TICKLED A SHAMMING KID AND
BROUGHT HIM OUT OF HIS TRANCE.
And when Elisha was come into the house,
behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his
bed. And he went in therefore, and shut the
door upon them twain, and prayed unto the
Lord. And he went up and lay upon the child,
and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes
upon his eyes, and bis hands upon his hands ;
and he stretched himself upon the child : and
the flesh of the child waxed warm. Then he
returned, and walked in the house to and fro,
and went up, and stretched himself upon him :
and the child sneezed seven times, and the child
opened his eyes (2 Kings, iv, 32-35).
Miracles. 313
Sbadracb, Ittcsbacb, and Jibed ncgo.
three of satan's subjects astonish the officials of
nebuchadnezzar.
These men were bound in their coats, their
hosen, and their hats, and their other garments,
and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery
furnace. . . . And the princes, governors,
and captains, and the king's cousellors, being
gathered together, saw these men upon whose
bodies the fire had no power, nor was a hair of
their head singed, neither were their coats
changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on
hem (Dan. iii, 19, 21, 27).
Cake me Up.
A DIVERTING YARN, CALCULATED TO CAUSE MUCH MERRIMENT
AMONG THE MARINES.
Then they said unto him [Jonah], What shall
we do unto thee that the sea may be calm unto
us ? for the sea wrought and was tempestuous.
And he said unto them, Take me up and cast me
forth in the sea. ... So they took up
Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea ; and the
sea ceased from her raging. . . . Now the
Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up
Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the
fish three days and nights. . . . And the
Lord spake unto the fish, and it vomited out
Jonah upon the dry land (Jonah i, 11-17; ii, 10).
The Confiding husband.
A TIMELY DREAM SAVES THE REPUTATION OF A YOUNG
WOMAN.
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this
314 Credibility of the Bible.
wise : When as his mother Mary was espoused
to Joseph, before they came together, she was
found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then
Joseph her husband being a just man, and not
wishing to make her a public example, was
minded to put her away privily. But while he
thought on these things, behold the angel of the
Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying,
Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take
unto thee Mary thy wife : for that which is con-
ceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. . . .
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the
angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took
unto him his wife ; and knew her not till she
had brought forth her first-born son; and he
called his name Jesus (Matt, i, 18-25).
they Did eat ami lUcrc Tilled.
INTERESTING APPLICATION OF HYPNOTISM BY WHICH A MULTI-
TUDE WERE CONVINCED THAT THEY HAD DINED.
And they say unto him, We have here but five
loaves and two fishes. He said, Bring them
hither to me. And he commanded the multi-
tude to sit down on the grass and took the five
loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to
heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the
loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the
multitude. And they did all eat, and were filled ;
and they took up the fragments that remained
twelve baskets full. And they that had eaten
were about five thousand men beside women and
children (Matt, xiv, 15-21).
Miracles. 315
Eazarus Come Tortb.
JESUS APPRISES THE BROTHER OF MARTHA THAT THE JOKE HAS
BEEN CARRIED FAR ENOUGH.
When Jesus came, he found that he [Lazarus]
had lain in the grave four days already. . . .
Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh
to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay
upon it. Jesus said, Take ye away the stone.
Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith
unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh, for he
hath been dead four days. . . . He [Jesus]
cried with a loud voice, Lazarus come forth.
And he that was dead came forth (John xi, 17,
38, 39, 43, 44).
These Bible stories, which Christians profess
to believe, are unworthy of serious considera-
tion. They are not historical, but fabulous. A
miracle is a fable. The miraculous is impos-
sible ; the impossible untrue. If miracles were
possible and necessary in that age they are pos-
sible and necessary now. This is an age of un-
belief. Give us one miracle and we will believe.
Let Jesus visit earth again and with his divine
touch revivify the inanimate dust of Lincoln
and give him back to the nation that loved him
so well, and we will acknowledge his divinity
and believe that the Bible is inspired. Had he
restored to life the decaying corpse of Lazarus
the Jews would have believed in him. The Jews
did not believe in him, therefore the miracle
was not performed.
3 16 Credibility of the Bible.
The divine origin of the Bible cannot be es-
tablished by miracles because the possibility of
a miracle itself cannot be established. In the
language of Hume, " a miracle is a violation of
the laws of nature ; and as a firm and unalter-
able experience has established these laws, the
proof against a miracle, from the very nature of
the fact, is as entire as any argument from expe-
rience can possibly be imagined."
<
The Bible God. 317
THE BIBLE GOD.
CHAPTER XXIV.
The Bible, it is claimed, is the word of God —
a revelation from God to man. It was written or
inspired by God, and deals chiefly with God and
his works.
Who and what is this God of the Bible? What
is the nature and character of this divine author?
Is he omnipresent, or has he a local habitation
merely ? Is he omnipotent, or is he limited in
power? Is he omniscient, or is his knowledge
circumscribed ? Is he immutable, or is he a
changeable being ? Is he visible and compre-
hensible, or is he invisible and unknowable ? Is
he the only God, or is he one of many gods ?
Does he possess the form and attributes of man,
or is he, as Christians affirm, without body,
parts, or passions? Let God through his in-
spired penmen answer.
T$ 6od Omnipresent?
Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the
Lord (Jer. xxiii, 24). *
The heaven and heaven of heavens cannot
contain him (2 Ch. ii, 6).
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if
318 Credibility of the Bible.
I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in
the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall
thy hand lead*me (Ps. cxxxix, 8-10).
The Lord was not in the wind: . . . the Lord
was not in the earthquake (1 Kings xix, 11).
And Cain went out from the presence of the
Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod (Gen. iv, 16).
And he said unto Balak, Stand here by thy
burnt offering, while I meet the Lord yonder
(Num. xxiii, 15).
Go down, charge the people, lest they b^eak
through unto the Lord to gaze (Ex. xix, 21).
God is come into the camp. And they said,
Woe unto us ! for there hath not been such a
thing heretofore (1 Sam. iv, 7).
Ts God Omnipotent?
With God all things are possible (Matt, xix,
26)-
I know that thou canst do everything (Job
xlii, 2).
There is nothing too hard for thee (Jer. xxxii,
17).
For the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth (Rev.
xix, 6).
And the Lord was with Judah, and he [the
Lord] drave out the inhabitants of the moun-
tain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of
the valley, because they had chariots of iron
(Jud. i, 19).
The Bible God. 319
T$ fie Omniscient?
God . . . knowetk all things (1 John iii,
20)
The eyes of the Lord are in every place (Prov-
xv, 3).
He knoweth the secrets of the heart (Ps. xliv,
21).
No thought can be withholden from thee (Job
xlii, 2).
The Lord thy God led thee these forty years
in the wilderness, j ? . . to know what was
in thine heart (Deut. viii, 2).
God left him, to try him, that he might know
all that was in his heart (2 Ch. xxxii, 31).
The Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and
Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very
grievous, I will go down now and see whether
they have done altogether according to the cry
of it, which is come unto me : and if not I will
know (Gen. xviii, 20, 21).
T$ fie Immutable?
I am the Lord, I change not (Mai. iii, 6).1
With whom is no variableness, neither shadow
of turning (James i, 17).
My covenant will I not break, nor alter the
thing that is gone out of my lips (Ps. lxxxix, 34).
He is not a man that he should repent (1 Sam.
*v, 29).
I [God] am weary with repenting (Jer. xv, 6).
320 Credibility of the Bible.
It repented the Lord that he had made man
on the earth (Gen. vi, 6).
The Lord repented that he had made Saul
king over Israel (1 Sam. xv, 35).
And God repented of the evil that he said he
would do unto them; and he did it not (Jonah
iii, 10).
The Lord God of Israel saith, I said indeed
that thy house and the house of thy father
should walk before me forever : but now the
Lord saith, Be it far from me (1 Sam. ii, 30).
Ts ffc Uisible and Comprehensible?
I have seen God face to face (Gen. xxxii, 30).
And they saw the God of Israel (Ex. xxiv,
10).
For the invisible things of him from the crea-
tion of the world are clearly seen, being under-
stood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead (Rom. i, 20).
No man hath seen God at any time (John i,
18).
Whom no man hath seen, nor can see (1 Tim.
vi, 16).
There shall no man see me and live (Ex.
xxxiii, 20).
God is great', and we know him not (Job
xxxvi, 26).
* Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him
ou*t (Job xxxvi i, 23).
The Bible God. 321
! $ there One 6od Only ?
There is one God; and there is none other but
jde (Mark xii, 32).
Before me there was no God formed, neither
shall there be after me (Is. xliii, 10).
I am the first, and I am the last; and besides
me there is no God (Is. xliv, 6).
Thou shalt not revile the gods (Ex. xxii, 28).
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is
become as one of us (Gen. iii, 22).
Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the
gods ? (Ex. xv, 11).
Among the gods, there is none like unto thee,
0 Lord (Ps. lxxxvi, 8):
The Lord is a great God, and a great King
above all gods (Ps. xcv, 3).
God standeth in the congregation of the
mighty; he judgeth among the gods (Psalms
Ixxxii, 1).
Tn ttlbat Term Does God Exist ?
" There is but one living and true God, ever-
lasting, without body, parts, or passions." —
Thirty -nine Articles.
Compare the above conception of Deity with
the anthropomorphic character of God por-
trayed in the following one hundred passages:
God created man in his own image (Gen. i,
27).
The hair of his [God's] head (Dan. vii, 9).
322 Credibility of the Bible.
Thou canst not see my [God's] face (Ex. xxxiii,
20).
The eyes of the Lord run to and fro (2 Ch.
xvi, 9).
And his [God's] ears are open (1 Pet. iii, 12).
These are a smoke in my [God's] nose (Is.
Ixv, 5).
There went up a smoke out of his [God's]
nostrils (2 Sam. xxii, 9).
That proceedeth out of the mouth of God
(Matt, iv, 4).
His [God's] lips are full of indignation (Is.
xxx, 27).
And his [God's] tongue as a devouring fire
(Ibid).
He shall dwell between his [God's] shoulders
(Deut. xxxiii, 12).
Thou [God] hast a mighty arm (Ps. Ixxxix,
13).
The right hand of the Lord (Ps. cxviii, 16).
This is the finger of God (Ex. viii, 19).
I [God] will show them the back (Jer. xviii,
17).
Out of thy [God's] bosom (Bs. Ixxiv, 11).
My [God's] heart maketh a noise in me (Jer.
iv, 19).
My [God's] boivels are troubled (Jer. xxxi, 20).
The appearance of his [God's] loins (Ezek. i,
27).
Darkness was under his [God's] feet (Ps. xviii,
9).
The mind of the Lord (Lev. xxiv, 12).
The Bible God. 323
The breath of his [God's] nostrils (2 Sam. xxii,
16).
In the light of thy [God's] countenance (Ps.
lxxxix, 15).
Thou God seest me (Gen. xvi, 13).
My God will hear me (Micah vii, 7).
The Lord smelled a sweet savour (Gen. viii, 21).
Will I [God] eat the flesh of bulls? (Ps. 1, 13.).
Will I [God] drink the blood of goats? (Ibid.)
The hand of God hath touched me (Job xix, 21).
We have heard his [God's] voice (Deut. v, 24).
God doth talk with man (Ibid).
The Lord shall laugh at him (Ps. xxxvii, 13).
Now will I [God] cry (Is. xlii, 14).
He [God] shall give a shout (Jer. xxv, 30).
Why steepest thou, O Lord? (Ps. xliv, 23.)
Then the Lord awaked (Ps. Ixxviii, 65).
God sitteth upon the throne (Ps. xlvii, 8).
God riseth up (Job xxxi, 14).
The Lord stood by him (Acts xxiii, 11).
I [God] will walk among you (Lev. xx\i, 12).
Thou [God] didst ride upon thine horses
(Hab. iii, 8).
He [God] wrestled with him (Gen. xxxii, 25).
The Lord will work (1 Sam. xiv, 6).
I [God] am weary (Is. i, 14).
He [Gcd] rested on the seventh day (Gen. ii, 2).
The Lord God planted a garden (Gen. ii, 8).
God is able to graft (Rom. xi, 23).
The Father is a husbandman (John xv, 1).
He [God] hath fenced up my way (Job xix, 8).
The Lord is my shepherd (Ps. xxiii, 1).'
324 Credibility of the Bible.
The Lord build the house (Ps. cxxvii, 1).
The tables were the work of God (Ex. xxxii, 16).
Thou [God] our potter (Is. lxiv, 8).
The Lord God made coats of skin (Gen. iii, 21).
And [I God] shod thee with badger's skin
(Ezek. xvi, 10).
The Lord shave with a rezor (Is. vii, 20).
I [God] will cure them (Jer. xxxiii,6).
And he [God] buried him (Deut. xxxiv, 6).
Thy God which teacheth thee (Is. xlviii, 17).
Musical instruments of God (1 Ch. xvi, 42).
He [God] wrote upon the tables (Ex. xxxiv, 28).
Thy book which thou [God] hast written (Ex.
xxxii, 32).
0 Lord, I have heard thy speech (Hab. iii, 2).
The Lord is our lawgiver (Is. xxxiii, 22).
The Lord is our judge (Ibid).
For God is the king of all the earth (Ps. xlvii, 7).
He [God] is the governor (Ps. xxii, 8).
God himself is . . . our captain (2 Ch.
xiii, 12).
The Lord is a man of war (Ex. xv, 3).
The Lord hath opened his armory (Jer. i, 25).
The Lord shall blow the trumpet (Zech. ix, 14).
1 [God] myself will Jight (Jer. xxi, 5).
He [God] will whet his sword (Ps. vii, 12).
He [God] hath bent his bow (Lam. ii, 4).
God shall shoot at; them (Ps. lxiv, 7).
Rocks are thrown down by him [God] (Nahum
i, 6).
I [God] will kill you (Ex. xxii, 24).
The Bible God. 325
Thou [God] art become cruel to me (Job. xxx,
21).
I [God] sware in my wrath (Ps. xcv, 11).
I [God] have cursed them already (Mai. ii, 1).
Thy God hath blessed thee (Deut. ii, 7).
The Lord repented (Amos vii, 6).
God did tempt Abraham (Gen. xxii, 1).
0 Lord thou hast deceived me (Jer. xx, 7).
He [God] hath polluted the kingdom (Lam.ii,2).
He [God] is mighty in strength (Job ix, 4).
With him [God] is wisdom (Job xii, 13).
1 [God] was a husband (Jer. xxxi, 32).
The only begotten of the Father (John i, 14).
The sons of God saw the daughters of men
(Gen. vi, 2).
The love that God hath to us (1 John iv, 16).
These six things doth the Lord hate (Prov. vi,
16).
The joy of the L^rd (Neh. viii, 10).
It grieved him [God] at his heart (Gen. vi, 6).
The Lord pitieth them that fear him (Ps. ciii,
13).
I [God] feared the wrath of the enemy (Deut.
xxxii, 27)'
The Lord . . . is a jealous God (Ex. xxxiv, 14).
The fierce anger of the Lord (Num. xxv, 4).
With the Lord there is mercy (Ps. cxxx, 7)
Vengeance is mine . . . saith the Lord
(Koui. xii, 10).
While many of these texts are simply meta-
phorical allusions to a Deity, as a whole they
clearly reveal the anthropomorphic conception
326 Credibility of the Bible.
of God that prevailed among Bible writers
generally. This God was represented as a being
of power and glory, yet a being possessing the
form, the attributes, and the limitations of man.
He was a colossal despot — a king of kings.
The God of the Bible is a product of the
human imagination. God did not make man in
God's image, as claimed, but man made God in
man's image. Man is not the creation of God,
but God is the creation of man.
This God who was supposed to have created
the universe out of nothing has himself gradu-
ally been resolved into nothingness in the minds
of his votaries, and to-day, enthroned in the
brain of Christendom, there reigns a mere
phantom, "without body, parts, or passions"
Part III.
MORALITY.
PART IH.--MORALITY.
CHAPTEE XXV.
THE BIBLE NOT A MORAL
GUIDE.
We are asked to accept the Bible as the re-
vealed will of an all-powerful, all-wise and all-
just God. We are asked to revere it beyond all
other books, to make a fetich of it. Above all,
we are asked to accept it as a divine and infalli-
ble moral guide. Christians profess to accept it
as such ; and many who are not Christians —
many who reject the authenticity of the most of
it, and who doubt the credibility of much of it —
parrot-like, repeat the claims of supernatural-
ists, dwell upon its "beautiful moral teachings,1'
and abet the efforts of the clergy to place it in
our public schools, seemingly oblivious to the
fact that it is not in any sense a moral guide.
mat T$ morality ?
What is morality ? Paley, by many consid-
ered the chief of modern Christian authorities,
basing his conception of morality on the Bible,
33Q MoraKt) of the Bible.
defines it as " the doing good to mankind, in
obedience to the will of God [as revealed in the
Bible], and for the sake of everlasting happiness
[and to escape everlasting misery]." Supernatur-
alism and selfishness are thus its sole principles ;
supernaturalism being its source and selfishness
being the motive for its observance. Here vir-
tue does not bring its own reward, the will of
God is not omnipotent, and mankind, like a
spoiled child, must be bribed or frightened to
obey its precepts.
This is the Christian conception of morality.
But it is a false conception. Morality is not su-
pernatural and divine, but natural and human. It
is purely utilitarian. Utility, regardless of the
will of God, is its all-pervading principle. What-
ever is beneficial to man is right, is moral; and
whatever is injurious to him is wrong, is im-
moral. The end and aim of moral conduct, ac-
cording to Hobbes, is self-preservation and
happiness ; not everlasting happiness in another
world, as taught by Paley, but life-lasting hap-
piness in this. Dr. Priestley's phrase, " The
greatest happiness of the greatest number," i8
pronounced by Jeremy Bentham, one of the
most eminent of ethical writers, " a true stan-
dard for whatever is right or wrong, useful, use-
less, or mischievous in human conduct."
More and more, as men become civilized and
enlightened, the egoistic principles of religion-
ists give way to the altruistic principle of Ba-
tionalists. "Live for others" is the sublime
The Bible Not a Moral Guide.
C/O
teaching of the Positivist Comte. In obeying
this noble precept we are not sacrificing, but
augmenting our own happiness. " To do good
is my religion," said Thomas Paine. The re-
wards and punishments of this religion, which
is here but another name for morality, are hap-
pily expressed by Abraham Lincoln : "When I
do good I feel good, and when I do bad I feel
bad." The husband and wife who labor for each
other's happiness, regardless of their own ; the
father and mother who deprive themselves to
make their children happy ; men, like Sir Moses
Montefiore and Baron Hirsch, and women, like
Florence Nightingale and Clara Barton, who de-
vote their time and wealth to aid in removing
the poverty and alleviating the sufferings of
humanity — these, by increasing the happiness
of others, increase their own.
When the true principles of morality are uni-
versally understood and accepted, divine revela-
tions will be cast aside and supernatural relig-
ions will die ; the zealot's visions of a celestial
paradise will vanish, and the philanthropist's
dream of a heaven on earth will be realized.
Bible Codes.
The Ten Commandments in the Old Testa-
ment and the Sermon on the Mount, including
the Golden Rule, in the New, are supposed to
comprise the best moral teachings of the Bible.
They are declared to be so far superior to all
other moral codes as to preclude the idea of
human origin.
332 Morality of the Bible.
The Decalogue is a very imperfect moral code ;
not at all superior to the religious and legisla-
tive codes of other ancient peoples. The last
six of these commandments, while not above
criticism, are in the main just, and were recog-
nized alike by Jew and Gentile. They are a
crude attempt to formulate the crystallized ex-
periences of mankind. The first four (first three
according to Catholic and Lutheran versions)
possess no moral value whatever. They are
simply religious emanations from the corrupt
and disordered brain of priestcraft. They only
serve to obscure the principles of true morality
and produce an artificial system which bears the
same relation to natural morality that a measure
of chaff and grain does to a measure of win-
nowed grain.
As a literary composition and as a partial ex-
position of the peculiar tenets of a heretical
Jewish sect, the Sermon on the Mount is inter-
esting ; but as a moral code it is of little value.
Along with some admirable precepts, it contains
others, like the following, which are false and
pernicious: "Blessed are the poor in spirit;"
" Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit
the earth ;" " If thy right eye offend thee pluck
it out;" " If thy right hand offend thee cut it off;"
" Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced
committeth adultery;" " Resist not evil ;" "Who-
soever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn
to him the other also;" "If any man will sue thee
at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have
The Bible Not a Moral Guide. 333
thy cloak also;" "Love your enemies;" "Lay
not up for yourselves treasures upon earth;"
"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall
eat, or what ye shall drink, nor yet for your
body, what ye shall put on ;" " Take therefore
no thought for the morrow."
Christians claim that unbelievers have no
moral standard, that they alone have such a
standard — an infallible standard — the Bible. If
we ask them to name the best precept in this
standard they cite the Golden Rule. And yet
the Golden Rule is in its very nature purely a
human rule of conduct. "Whatsoever ye [men,
not God] would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them." This rule enjoins what
Christians profess to condemn, that every per-
son shall form his own moral standard. In this
rule the so-called divine laws are totally ignored.
The Golden Rule, so far as the Bible is con-
cerned, is a borrowed gem. Chinese, Greek, and
Roman sages had preached and practiced it cen-
turies before the Sermon on the Mount was de-
livered. This rule, one of the best formulated
by the ancients, is not, however, a perfect rule of
human conduct. It does not demand that our
desires shall always be just. But it does recog-
nize and enjoin the principle of reciprocity, and
is immeasurably superior to the rule usually
practised by the professed followers of Jesus :
Whatsoever we would that you should do unto
us, do it ; and whatsoever we wish to do unto
you, that will we do.
334 Morality of the Bible.
The three Christian virtues, faith, hope, and
charity, fairly represent this whole system of so-
called Bible morals — two false or useless pre-
cepts to one good precept. Charity is a true
virtue, but " faith and hope," to quote Volney,
"may be called the virtues of dupes for the
benefit of knaves." And if the knaves have ad-
mitted charity to be the greatest of these vir-
tues, it is because they are the recipients and
not the dispensers of it.
Bible models.
The noblest types of manhood, like Bruno,
Spinoza, Paine, and Ingersoll, have been slan-
dered, anathematized, and slain by Christians,
while the gods, the heroes, the patriarchs, the
prophets, and the priests of the Bible have been
presented as the highest models of moral excel-
lence. Of these, Jehovah, Abraham, Jacob,
Moses, David, Paul, and Christ are represented
as the greatest and the best.
Who was Jehovah ? " A being of terrific char-
acter— cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust."
— Jefferson.
Who was Abraham ? An insane barbarian
patriarch who married his sister, denied his
wife, and seduced her handmaid; who drove one
child into the desert to starve, and made prep-
arations to butcher the other.
Who was Jacob ? Another patriarch, who
won God's love by deceiving his father, cheat-
ing his uncle, robbing his brother, practicing
The Bible Not a Moral Guide. 335
bigamy with two of his cousins, and committing
fornication with two of his housemaids.
Who was Moses? A model of meekness; a
man who boasted of his own humility; a man
who murdered an Egyptian and hid his body in
the sand; a man who exterminated whole na-
tions to secure the spoils of war, a man who
butchered in cold blood thousands of captive
widows, a man who tore dimpled babes from
the breasts oi dying mothers and put them to a
cruel death; a man who made orphans of thirty-
two thousand innocent girls, and turned sixteen
thousand of them over to the brutal lusts of a
savage soldiery.
Who was David ? "A man after God's own
heart.' A vulgar braggadocio, using language to
a woman the mere quoting of which would send
me tc prison; a traitor, desiring to lead an en-
emy s troops against his own countrymen; a
thief and robber, plundering and devastating
the country on every side; a liar, uttering
wholesale falsehoods to screen himself from
justice; a red-handed butcher, torturing and
slaughtering thousands of men, women, and
children, making them pass through burning
brick-kilns, carving them up with saws and
axes, and tearing them in pieces under harrows
of iron; a polygamist, with a harem of wives
and concubines; a drunken debauchee, dancing
halt-naked before the maids of his household; a
lecherous old libertine, abducting and ravishing
the wife of a faithful soldier; a murderer, hav-
336 Morality of the Bible.
ing this faithful soldier put to death after
desolating his home; a hoary-headed fiend,
foaming with vengeance on his dying bed, de-
manding with his latest breath the deaths of two
aged men, one of whom had most contributed
to make his kingdom what it was, the other a
man to whom he had promised protection.
Who was Paul ? A religious fanatic; a Jew
and a Christian. As a Jew, in the name of Je-
hovah, he persecuted Christians; as a Christian,
in the name of Christ, he persecuted Jews; and
both as a Jew and a Christian, and in the name
of both Jehovah and Christ, he practiced dis-
simulation and hallowed falsehood.
Who was Christ ? He is called the " divine
teacher." Yes,
"He led
The crowd, he taught them justice, truth, and peace,
In semblance; but he lit within their souls
The quenchless flames of zeal, and blessed the sword
He brought on earth to satiate with the blood
Of truth and freedom his malignant soul."
—Shelley.
Tmmoral teachings of the Bible.
In the modern and stricter sense of the term,
morality is scarcely taught in the Bible. Neither
moral, morals, nud morality, nor their equivalents,
ethical and ethics, are to be found in the book. T.
B. Wakeman, president of the Liberal Univer-
sity of Oregon, a life-long student of sociology
and ethics, says :
" The word ' moral ' does not occur in the Bi-
ble, nor even the idea. Hunting for morals in
The Bible Not a Moral Guide. 337
the Bible is like trying to find human remains
in the oldest geologic strata — in the eozoon, for
instance. Morals had not then been born."
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it sanctions nearly every vice and crime.
Here is the long list of wrongs which it author-
izes and defends :
1. Lying and Deception.
2. Cheating.
3. Theft and Robbery.
4. Murder.
5. Wars of Conquest.
6. Human Sacrifices.
7. Cannibalism.
8. Witchcraft.
9. Slavery.
10. Polygamy.
11. Adultery and Prostitution.
12. Obscenity.
13. Intemperance.
14. Vagrancy.
15. Ignorance.
16. Injustice to Woman.
17. Unkindness to Children.
18. Cruelty to Animals.
19. Tyranny.
20. Intolerance and Persecution.
The Bible is, for the most part, the crude
literature of a people who lived 2,000 years, and
more, ago. Certain principles of right and wrong
they recognized, but the finer principles of moral-
338 Morality of the Bible.
ity were unknown to them. They were an igno-
rant people. An ignorant people is generally a
religious people, and a religious people nearly
always an immoral people. They believed that
they were God's chosen people — God's peculiar
favorites — and that because of this they had the
right to rob and cheat, to murder and enslave
the rest of mankind. From these two causes,
chiefly, ignorance and religion, i. e., supersti-
tion, emanated the immoral deeds and opinions
which found expression in the writings of their
priests and prophets.
The passages in the Bible which deal with
vice and crime may be divided into three
classes :
1. There are passages which condemn vice
and crime. These I indorse.
2. There are many passages in which the
crimes and vices of the people are narrated
merely as historical facts without either sanc-
tioning or condemning them. The book mer-
its no censure because of these.
3. There are numerous passages which sanc-
tion vice and crime. These, and these alone, in
the chapters which follow, I shall adduce to
prove the charges that I make against the Bi-
ble as a moral guide.
Lying-Cheating-Stealing. 339
CHAPTER XXVI.
LYING— CHEATING— STEALING.
Eying.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it sanctions lying and deception.
" And the Lord said, Who shall persuade
Ahab that he may go up and fall at Bamoth-
gilead? And one said on this manner, and an-
other said on that manner. And there came
forth a spirit and stood before the Lord, and
said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said
unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go
forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth
of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt
persuade him, and prevail also; go forth and do
so. Now therefore, behold the Lord hath put a
lying spirit in the mouth of all these, thy proph-
ets " (1 Kings xxii, 20-23).
" If the prophet be deceived when he hath
spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that
prophet" (Ezek. xiv, 9).
" O Lord, thou hast deceived me " (Jer. xx, 7).
" Wilt thou [God] be altogether unto me as a
liar? "(Jer. xv, 18.)
34-0 Morality of the Bible.
" God shall send them strong delusion that
they should believe a lie " (2 Tiiess. ii, 11).
Respecting the forbidden fruit God said: "In
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die" (Gen. ii, 17). But the serpent said, "Ye
shall not surely die " (iii, 4). Satan's declara-
tion proved true, God's declaration proved un-
true. Thus, according to the Bible, the first
truth told to man was told by the devil; the first
lie told to man was told by God.
In regard to the promised land God says:
"Doubtless ye shall not come into the land,
concerning which I sware to make you dwell
therein, . . . and ye shall know my breach
of promise " (Num. xiv, 30-34).
God commands Moses to deceive Pharaoh
(Ex. iii, 18), he rewards the mid wives for their
deception (Ex. i, 15-20), and instructs Samuel
to deceive Saul (1 Sam. xvi, 2).
" And the Lord said unto Samuel, ... fill
thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to
Jesse the Beth-lehemite: for I have provided
me a king among his sons. And Samuel said,
How can I go? if Saul hear it he will kill me.
And the Lord said, Take a heifer with thee, and
say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord."
Would an omnipotent and a just God use
falsehood and deceit? If there be such a God
we must believe that he is an honest and a truth-
ful Being. But this God of the Bible violates
nearly every pledge he makes, and instructs his
children to lie and deceive.
Lying-Cheating-Stealing. 341
The patriarchs all follow his example and in-
structions. Abraham tries to deceive Pharaoh
and Abimelech (Gen. xii, 13-] 9; xx, 2); Sarah tries
to deceive the Lord himself (Gen. xviii, 13-15).
Abraham becomes the parent of a liar. Isaac
said of Rebecca, his wife, " She is my sister "
(Gen. xxvi, 7). Rebecca in turn deceives her
husband (Gen. xxvii, 6-17). Jacob sustains the
reputation of the family for lying.
" And he came unto his father, and said, My
father; and he said, Here am I ; who art thou,
my sod? And Jacob said unto his father, I am
JEsau, thy first-born. . . . And he discerned
him not, so he blessed him. And he said, Art
thou my very son, Esau? And he said, I am "
(Gen. xxvii, 18-24).
Jacob's wives, Leah and Rachel, both used
deceit. The former deceived her husband (Gen.
xxix, 25); the latter deceived her father (Gen.
xxxi, 34, 35). His twelve sons were all addicted
to the same vice (Gen. xxxvii; xlii, 7), and these
became the founders of the twelve tribes of
Israel, God's chosen people.
David, Elisha, and Jeremiah, three of God's
holiest men, were liars (1 Sam. xxvii, 8-11; 2
Kings, viii, 7-15; Jer. xxxviii, 24-27).
Speaking of the Hebrews and Bible writers
prior to the Exile and the introduction of Per-
sian ethics, Dr. Briggs says:
"They seem to know nothing of the sin of
speaking lies as such. What is the evidence
from this silence? They were altogether uncon-
342 Morality of the Bible.
scious of its sinfulness. The holiest men did
not hesitate to lie, whenever they had a good
object in view, and they showed no conscious-
ness of sin in it. And the writers who tell of
their lies are as innocent as they."
The Decalogue itself does not forbid lying.
It forbids perjury; but mere lying is not for-
bidden.
Christ taught in parables that he might de-
ceive the people.
" And he said unto them, Unto you it is given
to know the mystery of the kingdom of God,
but unto them that are without, all these things
are done in parables: That seeing they may see,
and not perceive; and hearing they may hear,
and not understand; lest at any time they should
be converted, and their sins should be forgiven
them " (Mark iv, 11, 12).
Paul used deception and boasted of'it. He
says:
" Being crafty, I caught you with guile " (2
Cor. xii, 16).
" Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I
might gain the Jews" (1 Cor. ix, 20.
"I am made all things to all men" (1 Cor. ix, 22).
" For if the truth of God hath more abounded
through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I
also judged as a sinner? " (Rom. iii, 7.)
The primitive Christians, accepting the Bible
as infallible authority, naturally regarded lying
for God's glory not a vice but a virtue. Mosheim
in his "Ecclesiastical History" says:
Lying--Cheating--Stealing. 343
"It was an established maxim with many
Christians, that it was pardonable in an advo-
cate for religion to avail himself of fraud and
deception, if it were likely they might conduce
toward the attainment of any considerable good."
Dean Milman, in hfs" "History of Chris-
tianity," says: " It was admitted and avowed
that to deceive into Christianity was so valua-
ble a service as to hallow deceit itself."
Dr. Lardner says: " Christians of all sorts
were guilty of this fraud."
Bishop Fell writes: "In the first ages of the
church, so extensive was the license of forging,
so credulous were the people in believing that
the evidence of transactions was grievously ob-
scured."
M. Daille, one of the most distinguished of
French Protestants, says: " For a good end they
made no scruple to forge whole books."
Dr. Gieseler says they " quieted their con-
science respecting the forgery with the idea of
their good intention."
Dr. Priestley says they " thought it innocent
and commendable to lie for the sake of truth."
Scaliger says: " They distrusted the success of
Christ's kingdom without the aid of lying."
That these admissions are true, that primitive
Christianity was propagated chiefly by false-
hood, is tacitly admitted by all Christians.
They characterize as forgeries, or unworthy of
credit, three-fourths of the early Christian
writings!
344 Morality of the Bible.
The thirty-second chapter of the Twelfth
Book of Eusebius's " Evangelical Preparation "
bears this significant title: "How far it may be
proper to use falsehood as a medicine, and for
the benefit of those who require to be deceived."
Bishop Heliodorus affirms that a " falsehood
is a good thing when it aids the speaker and
does no harm to the hearers."
Synesius, another early Christian bishop,
writes: "The people are desirous of being de-
ceived; we cannot act otherwise with them."
That is what most modern theologians think.
"With Dr. Thomas Burnett, they believe that
" Too much light is hurtful to weak eyes."
That the methods employed in establishing
the church are still used in perpetuating its
power, a glance at the so-called Christian litera-
ture of the day will suffice to show. Bead the
works of our sectarian publishers, examine the
volumes that compose our Sunday-school libra-
ries, peruse our religious papers and periodicals,
and you will see that age has but confirmed this
habit formed in infancy.
Every church dogma is a lie; and based upon
lies, the church depends upon fraud for its sup-
port. The work of its ministers is not to discover
and promulgate truths, but to invent and dis-
seminate falsehoods. In the words of Isaiah,
they well might say : " We have made lies our
refuge, and under falsehood have we hid our-
selves."
The church offers a premium on falsehood
Lying-Cheating-Stealing. 345
and imposes a punishment for truthfulness.
With a bribe in one hand and a club in the other,
she has sought to prolong her sway. The allure-
ments of the one and the fear of the other have
filled the world with hypocrisy. In our halls
of Congress, in the editorial sanctum, in the
professor's chair, behind the counter, in the
workshop, at the fireside, everywhere, we find
men professing to believe what they know to be
false, or wearing the seal of silence on their lips,
while rank imposture stalks abroad and truth is
trampled in the mire before them.
Every truth seeker is taunted and ridiculed ;
every truth teller persecuted and defamed; the
scientist and philosopher are discouraged and
opposed ; the heretic and Infidel calumniated
and maligned. In proof of this, witness the
abuse heaped upon the Darwins and Huxleys,
see the countless calumnies circulated against
the Paines and Ingersolls.
It is said that Paulus Jovius kept a bank of
lies. To those who paid him liberally he gave
noble pedigrees and reputations ; those who did
not he slandered and maligned. Paulus is dead,
but the church, guided by Bible morality, con-
tinues his business.
Cheating.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide,
because it sanctions cheating and the use of
dishonorable methods in obtaining wealth and
power.
346 Morality of the Bible.
" And Jacob sod [boiled] pottage ; and Esau
came from the fields, and he was faint; and
Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with
that same red pottage ; for I am faint. . . .
And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright.
And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die;
and what profit shall this birthright do me ?
And Jacob said, Swear to me this day ; and he
sware unto him ; and he sold his birthright
unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and
pottage of lentils ; and he did eat and rose up
and went away" (Gen. xxv, 29-34).
This transaction, one of the basest recorded,
receives the sanction of the Bible. Jacob, with
God's assistance, by using striped rods, cheated
Laban out of his cattle :.
" And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger
cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods
before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that
they might conceive among the rods.
" When the cattle were feeble, he put them not
in ; so the feebler were Laban's and the stronger
Jacob's. And the man increased exceedingly,
and had much cattle" (Gen. xxx, 41-43).
"If he [Labau] said thus, The speckled shall
be thy wages ; then all the cattle bare speckled ;
and if he said thus, The ringstreaked shall be
thy hire ; then bare all the cattle ringstreaked.
Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your
father and given them to me" (xxxi, 8, 9).
Thus, by defrauding his uncle, his famishing
brother, and his blind and aged father, this God-
Lying--Cheating--Stealing. 347
•
beloved patriarch stands forth the prince o
cheats — the patron saint of rogues.
The Israelites obtain the Egyptians' property
by false pretenses.
" And I [God] will give this people favor in
the sight of the Egyptians ; and it shall come
to jjass that when ye go, ye shall not go empty;
but every woman shall borrow of her neighbor,
and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels
01 silver and jewels of gold, and raiment ; and
ye shall put them upon your sons and upon
your daughters; and ye shall spoil [rob] the
Egyptians" (Ex. iii, 21, 22).
'And the Lord said unto Moses, . " ;
Speak now in the ears of the people, and let
every man borrow of his neighbor, and every
woman of her neighbor, jewels of silver, and
jewels of gold' (Ex xi, 1, 2).
" And the children of Israel did according to
the word of Moses ; and they borrowed of the
Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold,
and raiment ; and the Lord gave the people
favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they
lent unto them such things as they required ;
and they spoiled the Egyptians" (Ex. xii, 35, 36).
Here obtaining goods under false pretenses
and embezzlement are commended by God him-
self. It may be claimed that the Egyptians had
wronged the Israelites. Suppose they had ;
could God secure justice for them only by
treachery and fraud? Supppose your son
worked lor a farmer, and that farmer defrauded
34§ Morality of the Bible.
•
him of his wages ; would you advise your
sou to borrow a horse of his employer and
decamp with it in order to obtain redress,
especially when you had the power to obtain re-
dress by lawful means ? Instead of encouraging
these slaves in an act that would eventually
lead them to become a race of thieves and rob-
bers, an honest God would have taken their
masters by the collar and said, " You have re-
ceived the labor of these men and women ; pay
them for it !"
In the Mosaic law we find the following beauti-
ful statute :
"Ye shall not eat of anything that dietli of
itself ; thou shalt give it unto the stranger that
is in thy gates, that he may eat it, or thou may-
est sell it unto an ali^n" (Dent, xiv, 21).
"Anything that dieth of itself " is diseased.
Diseased flesh is poisonous. To authorize its
use, even if those receiving it are not deceived,
is immoral.
Out West, a family, good Christians, had a
hog to die of some disease. What did they do
with it? Eat it? No, their Bible told them this
would be wrong. They dressed it nicely, took
it into an adjoining neighborhood, and sold it to
strangers. Was this right ? The Bible says it
was.
With the widespread influence of a book in-
culcating such lessons in dishonesty, what must
be the inevitable result ? Men distrust their
fellow men ; along our business thoroughfares
Lying-Cheating-Stealing. 349
Fraud drives with brazen front ; in almost every
article of merchandise we buy we find a lie en-
shrined ; at every corner sits some Jacob slyly
whittling spotted sticks to win his neighbor's
flocks.
Stealing.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it sanctions theft and robbery.
Its pages teem with accounts of robberies,
and in many instances God is said to have
planned them and shared in the spoils. He in-
structs Moses to send a marauding expedition
against the Midianites. They put the inhabit-
ants to the sword, and return with 800,000 cat-
tle. Of this booty God exacts 800 head for
himself and 8,000 head for his priests. The re-
mainder he causes to be divided between the
soldiers and citizens. So elated are the Israel-
ites with their success, so grateful to God for
his assistance, that they make him a gift of
16,000 shekels of stolen gold (Num. xxxi).
When Joshua took Jericho, "they burnt the
city with fire, and all that was therein ; only the
silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and
of iron they put into the treasury of the Lord"
(Josh, vi, 19-24).
When he captured Ai, "the cattle and the
spoils of that city Israel took for a prey unto
themselves, according unto the word of the Lord
which he commanded Joshua" (Josh, viii, 27).
Jehovah gets the spoils of Jericho, and Israel
those of Ai.
350 Morality of the Bible.
David, a modest shepherd lad, is placed
under the tutelage of Jehovah only to become
the crudest robber of his time. On one occa-
sion, purely for plunder, he despoiled three
nations and " saved neither man nor woman
alive to bring tidings to Gath, saying, Lest
they should tell on us " (1 Sam. xxvii, 8-12).
It is said that the Italian bandit never plans
a robbery without invoking a divine blessing
upon his undertaking, doubtless believing that
the God of David, of Moses, and of Joshua still
reigns.
Jacob's wives, Leah and Rachel, were both
thieves. Leah appropriated the property of her
son ; Rachel stole her father's jewels. Neither
act was condemned.
" When thou comest into thy neighbor's vine-
yard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at
thine own pleasure, but thou shalt not put any
in thy vessel.
" When thou comest into the standing corn of
thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the ears
with thine baud; but thou shalt not move a sickle
unto thy neighbor's standing corn" (Deut. xxiii,
24, 25).
" Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to sat-
isfy his soul when he is hungry " (Prov. vi, 30).
Grand larceny is condemned, but petty lar-
ceny is commended.
Christ enjoined submission to robbery : " Of
him that taketh away thy goods ask them not
again" (Luke vi, 30).
Murder- War. 351
CHAPTER XXVII.
MURDER— WAR.
murder.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it sanctions murder.
It is true the Sixth Commandment says,
"Thou shalt not kill;" but this law is practically
annulled by innumerable commands from the
same source, like the following, to kill :
"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put
every man his sword by his side, and go in and
out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and
slay every man his brother, and every man his
companion, and every man his neighbor " (Ex.
xxxii, 27).
" Spare them not, but slay both man and wo-
man, infant and suckling " (1 Sam. xv, 3).
" ,§llaX ujbterly_old and^young, both maids,.an4
little children " (Ezek. ix, 6).
"Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword
from blood " (Jer. xlviii, 10).
For the leader and legislator of his chosen
people, God selects a murderer. The first re-
corded act of Moses was premeditated murder.
352 Morality of the Bible.
" He looked this way and that way, and when
he saw that there was no man, he slew the
Egyptian, and hid him in the sand " (Ex. ii 12).
For committing a murder, Phinehas is re-
warded by Jehovah with " the covenant of an
everlasting priesthood " (Num. xxv, 6-13).
Samuel "hewed Agag," a captive king, "in
pieces before the Lord " (1 Sam. xv, 32, 33).
Jehu murders all the house of Ahab, and
God rewards him for it :
"And Joram turned his hands and fled, and
said to Ahaziah, There is treachery, O Ahaziah.
And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength,
and smote Jehoram between his arms, and the
arrow went out at his heart and he sunk down
in his chariot.
"But when Ahaziah, the king of Judah, saw
this, he fled by the way of the garden house.
And Jehu followed after him, and said, Smite
him also in the chariot. And they did so.
"And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel
heard of it, and she painted her face, and tired
her head, and looked out at a window. And as
Jehu entered in at the gate she said, Had Zimri
peace who slew his master ? And he lifted up
his face to the window, and said, Who is on
my side ? Who ? And there looked out to
him two or three eunuchs. And he said, Throw
her down. So they threw her down, and some
of her blood was sprinkled on the wall, and on
the horses; and he trode her under foot. And
when he was come in, he did eat and drink, and
Murder-- War. 353
said, Go, see now this cursed woman, and bury
her; for she is a king's daughter. And they went
to bury her, but they found no more of her than
the skull, and the feet, and the palms of her
hands."
The dogs had devoured her.
"And Ahab had seventy sons in Samaria.
And Jehu wrote letters and sent to Samaria. . .
And it came to pass when the letter came to
them, that they took the king's sons, and slew
seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets,
and sent him them to JezreeK"
" So Jehu slew all that remained of the house
of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men, and
his kinsfolks, and his priests, until he left him
none remaining."
" And the Lord said unto Jehu, Because thou
hast done well in executing that which is right
in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of
Ahab according to all that was in mine heart,
thy children of the fourth generation shall sit
on the throne of Israel " (2 Kings ix, 23, 24, 27,
30-35; x, 1, 7, 11, 30).
The assassination of Eglon by Ehud was
characterized by the basest treachery and
brutality. Eglon was king of Moab. Ehud
carried a present to him, and after he had de-
livered the present he told the king that he had
a private message for him. Eglon ordered his
attendants to retire, and when alone Ehud drew
a large dagger from beneath his cloak and
thrust it through the body of the king. And
354 Morality of the Bible.
the Bible tells us that God raised up Ehud ex-
pressly for this work (Jud. iii, 15-23).
The warmest eulogy in the Bible is bestowed
upon a murderess. Sisera is a fugitive from
battle. He reaches in safety the tent of Heber,
his friend. Heber is absent, but Jael, his wife,
receives the fugitive, and bids him welcome.
She gives him food, spreads a soft couch for
him, and covers him with her mantle. Wearied
with his retreat, and unconscious of impending
danger, Sisera soon sinks into a profound slum-
ber. With a tent nail in one hand and a ham-
mer in the other, Jael approaches the bedside
of her sleeping guest. She bends over him, lis-
tens to assure herself that he is asleep, then
places the nail against his temple, and with a
blow drives it through his head. A struggle,
and Sisera is dead, a victim of one of the most
damnable deeds ever committed.
In honor of this assassination, God's favorite
prophetess, Deborah, sings :
"Blessed above women shall Jael, the wife
of Heber the Kenite, be; blessed shall she be
above women in the tent. He asked water, and
she gave him milk; she brought forth butter in
a lordly dish. She put her hand to the nail, and
her right hand to the workman's hammer; and
with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote
off his head, when she had pierced and stricken
through his temples. At her feet he bowed, he
fell, he lay down; at her feet he bowed, he
fell : where he bowed, there he fell down dead.
Murder-War. 355
The mother of Sisera looked out at a window,
and cried through the lattice, Why is his char-
iot so long in coming ? Why tarry the wheels
of his chariot?" (Jud. v, 24-28.)
We wish to place before our children, for
their emulation, good and noble characters.
We have^ been taught that in the Bible such
characters may be found. You desire a model
woman to place before your daughter. What
one will you select ? Here is a woman whom
the Bible pronounces " blessed above women."
This must be a suitable model, then. Blessed
for what? For committing one of the most in-
famous of murders.
We had a Kansas girl who followed in the
footsteps of this " blessed woman." Years ago,
across the prairies of southern Kansas stretched
a lonely road. By its side, far from other habi-
tations, stood an unpretentious dwelling, inhab-
ited by four persons — father, mother, son, and
daughter. But the daughter was the ruling
spirit there. Their only volume, we are told,
was a Bible, and this the daughter read. The
house contains two rooms besides the cellar.
The rooms are separated simply by a curtain.
In the front room is kept a small stock of gro-
ceries. Here, too, with its back against the cur-
tain, and fastened to the floor, stands a chair.
Above the door is a sign with this inviting
word, " Provisions." A traveler enters and
makes some purchases, displaying a well-filled
purse. He is treated hospitably, and invited to
356 Morality of the Bible.
remain awhile and rest. Wearied, he drops
into the chair, his head pressing against the
curtain. Armed with a hammer, this follower of
Jael now approaches from the rear. One well-
directed blow, and the tired traveler sinks into
eternal rest His pockets are rifled, and his
body thrown into the cellar, to be taken out at
night and buried in the little garden behind the
dwelling. Time rolls on; the traveler does not
return. Day after day his wife at home, with
anxious heart, peers through the window and
sighs, " Why don't he come ?" At length suspi-
cion rests upoD this den of infamy. A search is
instituted, and the garden is found to be a cem-
etery, filled with the bodies of murdered travel-
ers— one a little child. In the mean time this
female monster with her kin has fled. Detect-
ives are still searching for her. They'll never
find her. Where is she? In heaven with Jael.
Now let some modern Deborah sing, " Blessed
above maicjens shall Kate Bender be !"
War.
•
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it sanctions wars of conquest and ex-
termination.
" Blessed be the Lord, my strength, which
teacheth my hands to war and my fingers to
fight " (Ps. cxliv, 1).
The Old Testament is largely a record of
wars and massacres. God is represented as " a
Murder-War. 357
man of war." At his command whole nations
are exterminated.
" Ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the
land from before you, . . . and ye shall dis-
possess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell
therein" (Num. xxxiii, 52, 53).
"And thou shalt consume all the people
which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee;
thine eye shall have no pity upon them " (Deut.
vii, 16).
" Of the cities of these people, which the Lord
thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou
shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but
thou shalt utterly destroy them " (Deut. xx, 16,
17).
"And they warred against the Midianites,
as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew
all the males. . . . And the children of Is-
rael took all the women of Midian captives,
and their little ones, and took the spoil of all
their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their
goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein
they dwelt, and all their goodly castles with
fire " (Num. xxxi, 7-10).
Moses is angry because the women and chil-
dren have been saved, and from this fiendish
conqueror comes the mandate: " Kill every male
among the little ones, and kill every woman that
hath known man."
The mourning remnants of twenty thousand
families are thus to be destroyed. The fathers,
far away, lie still in death beside the smoulder-
358 Morality of the Bible.
ing ruins of their once fair homes; and now their
wives and little ones are doomed to die. The
signal is sounded, and the massacre begins.
The mothers, on bended knees, with tearful eyes
and pleading lips, are ruthlessly cut down.
Their prattling babes, in unsuspecting inno-
cence, smile on the uplifted sword as if it
were a glittering toy, and the next moment feel
it speeding through their little frames. The
daughters only are spared — spared to be the
wretched slaves of those whose hands are red
with the life-blood of their dear ones.
And this is but a prelude to the sanguinary
scenes that are to follow.
" Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over
the river Arnon; behold I have given into thine
hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and
his land: begin to possess it, and contend with
him in battle. This day will I begin to put the
dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the na-
tions that are under the whole heaven, who shall
hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in
anguish because of thee."
" And we took all his cities at that time, and
utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and
the little ones of every city, we left none to re-
main " (Dent, ii, 24, 25, 34).
" The Lord our God delivered into our hands
Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people,
and we smote him until none was left to him re-
maining. And we took all his cities at that
time, there was not a city which we took not
Murder-War. 359
from them, threescore cities. . . . And we
utterly destroyed them as we did unto Sihon
king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men,
women, and children of every city " (Deut. iii,
3-6).
Moses dies, and Joshua next leads Jehovah's
troops.
" And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have
given into thine hand Jericho. . . . And they
utterly destroyed all that was in that city, both
man and woman, young and old " (Josh, vi, 2,21).
" And the Lord said unto Joshua, Stretch out
the spear that is in thy hand toward Ai; for I
will give it into thine hand. . . . And so it
was, that all that fell that day, both of men and
women, were twelve thousand. . . And
Joshua burnt Ai, and made it a heap forever "
(Josh, viii, 18, 25, 28).
" And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all
Israel with him, unto Lachish, and encamped
against it, and fought against it. And the Lord
delivered Lachish into the hands of Israel,
which took it on the second day, and smote it
with thef edge of the sword, and all the souls that
were therein" (Josh, x, 31, 32).
"And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eg-
lon, and all Israel with him; and they encamped
against it, and fought against it. And they took
it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the
sword, and all the souls that were therein he
utterly destroyed that day " (Josh, x, 34, 35).
Thus city after city falls, and nation after na-
360 Morality of the Bible.
tion is vanquished, until thirty-one kingdoms
have been destroyed. And still there " remain-
eth much land to be possessed," and many mill-
ions more of unoffending people to be slain to
please this God of War.
Christ came, heralded as the " Prince of
Peace." But he " came not to send peace but a
sword " — a sword his own arm was too weak to
wield, but which his followers have used with
dire effect. Expunge from the history of Chris-
tendom the record of its thousand wars and
little will remain. From the time that Constan-
tino inscribed the emblem of the cross upon his
banner to the present hour, the church of Christ
has been upheld by the sword. Five million
troops maintain its political supremacy in Eu-
rope to-day. To " express our national acknowl-
edgment of Almighty God as the source of all
authority in civil government; of the Lord Jesus
Christ as the ruler of nations, and of his re-
vealed will as of supreme authority;" in short,
to make this a "Christian nation," as Bible
moralists demand, means a standing army in
this country of five hundred thousand men.
The Bible has inspired more wars in Chris-
tendom than all else combined. It is a fountain
of blood, and the crimson rivers that have flowed
from it would float the navies of the world.
Sacrifkes--Cannibalism--Witchcraft. 36 1
CHAPTEE XXVIII.
HUMAN SACRIFICES-CANNIBAL-
ISM—WITCHCRAFT.
fiumatt Sacrifices.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it sanctions human sacrifices.
" No devoted thing, that a man shall devote
unto the Lord of all that he hath, both of man
and beast, and of the field of his possession,
shall be sold or redeemed ; every devoted thing
is most holy unto the Lord. None devoted,
which shall be devoted of men, shall be re-
deemed ; but shall surely be put to death " (Lev.
xxvii, 28, 29).
God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son:
" Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac,
whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of
Moriah ; and offer him there for a burnt offer-
ing" (Gen. xxii, 2).
The order was countermanded, but the perusal
of this text has driven thousands to insanity and
murder.
That a famine may cease, David sacrifices the
sons of Saul :
362 Morality of the Bible.
" Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites,
What shall I do for you ? and wherewith shall I
make the atonement, that ye may bless the in-
heritance of the Lord ? . . . And they
answered the king, The man that consumed us
and devised against us . . . Let seven men of
his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang
them up unto the Lord . . . And the king
said, I will give them. And he delivered them
unto the hands of the Gibeonites, and they
hanged them in the hill before the Lord ; and
they fell all seven together, and were put to
death in the days of the harvest" (2 Sam. xxi).
The sacrifice, we are told, was accepted, and
the famine ceased.
Five of these innocent victims, if the Bible
be true, were the sons of Micbal, David's own
wife. Two were the sons of Rizpah. Through-
out that long summer — from April till October
— in the heat and glare of the day and the chill
and darkness of the night, Rizpah, broken-
hearted, tenderly watches and protects the
decaying bodies of her dead sons and relatives.
"And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sack-
cloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from
the beginning of harvest until water dropped
upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither
the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor
the beasts of the field by night."
When I dwell on this dark tragedy, and con-
trast the love and devotion of this agonized and
despairing Hebrew mother with the malignant
Sacrifices--Cannibalism--Witchcraft. 363
hatred and heartless cruelty of this Bible God
and his despicable agent, humanity rises to
the highest heaven and divinity sinks to the
lowest hell.
The pathetic story of Jephthah's daughter is
familiar to all. Jephthah is a warior, and
makes a vow that if he is permitted to conquer
the children of Ammon, upon his return the first
that meets him at the door will be offered up
for a burnt offering unto the Lord. He is suc-
cessful ; the Lord permits him to defeat the chil-
dren of Ammon. Upon his return the first to
meet him is his daughter, an only child. He tells
her of his vow. She prays for two brief months
to live. Her prayer is granted, and at the expi-
ration of this time, the Bible tells us that Jeph-
thah " did with her according to the vow which
he had vowed " (Jud. xi, 26-40).
Describing the fulfilment of this terrible vow.
Dr. Oort says :
" This victim, crowned with flowers, was led
round the altar with music and song in honor of
Yahweh. She met her cruel fate without shrink-
ing. But who shall say how sick at heart her
father was when he struck that fatal blow with
his own hand and saw the blood of his darling
child poured out upon the sacred stone, while
her body was burned upon the altar?" (Bible for
Learners, Vol. I., p. 408.)
"In that frightful sacrifice that he performed —
breaking the holiest domestic ties — we do but
364 Morality of the Bible.
see the disastrous results of a mistaken faith "
(Ibid., p. 411).
The celebrated Jewish commentator, Dr. Kal-
isch, while endeavoring to palliate as far as pos-
sible the crimes of his people, admits that
human sacrifices were not uncommon among
them :
"The fact stands indisputable that human
sacrifices offered to Jehovah were possible
among the Hebrews long after the time of Moses,
without meeting a check or censure from the
teachers and leaders of the nation " (Leviticus,
Part I., p. 385).
" One instance like that of Jephthah not only
justifies, but necessitates, the influence of a gen-
eral custom. Pious men slaughtered human vic-
tims, not to Moloch, nor to any other foreign
deity, but to the national God, Jehovah" (Ibid.,
p. 390).
Jules Soury says : "Nothing is better estab-
lished than the existence of human sacrifices
among the Hebrews in honor of Iahveh, and
that down to the time of Josiah, perhaps even
until the return from the Babylonish captivity"
(Religion of Israel, p. 46).
The Church, having received the benefits of a
sacrificed God, deems human sacrifices no longer
necessary. But what can be said of the Church
as a whole cannot be said of all its individual
members. Scarcely a year passes without the
sacrifice of human beings by those who believe
the Bible to be inspired, and who believe that
Sacrifices-Cannibalism- Witchcraft. 365
what was right three thousand years ago is right
to-day.
The sacrifice of little Ben Smith at Los An-
geles, in 1882, is still remembered by some.
His father was converted at a Methodist revival.
He became very religious. The press dispatches
stated that " for several months he devoted his
time to the study of the Bible until he not only
convinced himself that he ought to make a hu-
man sacrifice, but brought his wife and their
only child, a boy of thirteen, to acquiesce, in his
views." I quote from the mother's testimony :
" When he talked to me and persuaded me
that a good wife ought to think as her husband
did, I got so as to take whatever he said as the
truth. He made us fast, and when Ben asked
him if God had ordered us to starve he said yes.
When he announced that the boy must be killed
we both remonstrated, but finally thought it
was all right. On the day appointed for the
ceremony he called Ben out of the house and
told him he had to die for our savior. The little
fellow knelt down and I got on my knees by his
side; John raised the knife, looked hard into the
boy's face, and then drove the knife into his
breast."
Here the mother was overcome with grief.
Regaining her composure, she continued : " I
am always thinking of Ben ; I am always hear-
ing him in the night asking to be brought in and
laid on his bed, and begging for a little water
before he died."
366 Morality of the Bible.
Let me recall another half-forgotten scene.
In a quiet village of New England live a pair
whom nature meant for good, kind citizens. But
they have become infatuated with the Bible.
They believe it to be infallible. Day after day
they pore over its pages. They dwell with espe-
cial interest upon the story of Abraham and
Isaac, until at last they become impressed with
the belief that they, too, are called upon to
offer up their child. The fatal hour arrives.
Nerved for the cruel deed, they approach the
bedside of their child, a sweet-faced, curly-
haired girl of four. How placidly she rests !
Folded upon her breast are dimpled hands, white
as the winter snow; curtained in slumber are
eyes as mild as the summer sky. How beauti-
ful 1 How pure ! We would risk our lives to
save that pretty thing from harm. How dear,
then, must she be to that father and that mother!
She is their idol. But that idol is about to be
sacrificed upon the altar of superstition. There
they stand — the mother with a lamp in her
hand, the father with a knife. They gaze for a
moment upon their sleeping victim. Then the
father lifts his arm and plunges the knife into
the heart of his child ! A quiver — the blue eyes
open, and cast a reproachful look upon the
parent. The little lips exclaim, " O papa !" and
the sacrifice is made !
You may say these people were insane. Aye,
but what made them insane ? And what, more
than almost any other cause, is filling our asy-
Sacrifices-Cannibalism-Witchcraft. 367
lums with these unfortunate people ? The vain
attempt to reconcile with reason the irreconcil-
able teachings of the Bible.
Cannibalism.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it teaches the horrible custom of can-
nibalism.
" The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst
of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers"
(Ezek. v, 10).
" And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and
the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat " (Lev.
xxvi, 29).
" And I will cause them to eat the flesh of
their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and
they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend "
(Jer. xix, 9).
" And thou slialt eat the fruit of thine own
body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daugh-
ters. ... So that the man that is tender
among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be
evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of
his bosom, and toward the remnant of his chil-
dren which he shall leave; so that he will not
give to any of them the flesh of his children
whom he shall eat. . . . The tender and
delicate woman among you, which would not
adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the
ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye
shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom,
and toward her son, and toward her daughter,
368 Morality of the Bible.
. . . for she shall eat them" (Deut. xxviii,
53-57).
"The hands of the pitiful women have sod-
den [boiled] their own children " (Lam. iv, 10).
" And the king said unto her, What aileth
thee? And she answered, This woman said
unto me, Give thy son that we may eat him to-
day, and we will eat my son to-morrow. So we
boiled my son, and did eat him. And I said
unto her on the next day, Give thy son that we
may eat him; and she hath hid her son " (2
Kings vi, 28, 29).
You will say that these were punishments in-
flicted upon these people for their sins. And
you will have us believe that these punishments
were just. Strange justice! a merciful God com-
pelling a starving mother to kill and devour her
own child !
" Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man
and drink his blood, ye have no life in you "
John vi, 53).
The church perpetuates the idea, if not the
practice, of cannibalism. The Christian takes a
piece of bread, and tries to make himself and
the world believe that he is eating the body of
Christ; he takes a sup of wine, and says, " This
is Christ's blood." Your sacramental feast
points to the time when savage priests gath-
ered around the festal board and supped on
human flesh and blood.
Primitive Christians, many of them, were
guilty of cannibalism. In their Agapse they
Sacrifices-Cannibalism-Witchcraft. 369
were accustomed to kill and eat an infant. Dr.
Cave in his "Primitive Christianity" (Part III.,
ch. i) says :
"Epiphanius reports that the Gnostics (a
sect of primitive Christians) at their meetings
were wont to take an infant begotten in their
promiscuous mixtures, and, beating it in a mor-
tar, to season it with honey and pepper and some
other spices and perfumes to make it palatable,
and then like swine or dogs to devour it, and
then to conclude all with prayer."
Meredith, in "The Prophet of Nazareth,"
says :
" So well known were those horrid vices to
be carried on by Christians in their nocturnal
and secret assemblies, and so certain it was
thought that every one who was a Christian
participated in them, that for a person to be
known to be a Christian was thought a strong
presumptive proof that he was guilty of these
offenses. ... It would appear, however,
that, owing to the extreme measures taken
against them by the Romans, both in Italy and
in all the provinces, the Christians, by degrees,
were forced to abandon entirely in their Agapse
infant murders, together with every species of
obscenity, retaining, nevertheless, some of them,
such as the kiss of charity, and the bread and
wine, which they contended was transubstanti-
ated into real flesh and blood."
In the remote districts of Christian Russia,
where the rays of our civilization have not yet
370 Morality of the Bible.
penetrated the darkness of theology, where Bi-
ble morals are still supreme, we are told that
even at the present time a more terribly real
form attaches to this eucharistic ceremony.
From Harper's Weekly I quote the following :
"We hear of horrid sects at present in Russia,
practicing cannibal and human sacrifices with
rites almost more devilish than any recorded in
history. 'The communism of the flesh of the
Lamb' and 'the communism of the blood of the
Lamb' really seem to have been invented by the
lowest demons of the bottomless pit. The sub-
ject is too revolting to be pursued in detail; it
is enough to say that an infant seven days old
is bandaged over the eyes, stretched over a
dish, and a silver spoon thrust into the side so
as to pierce the heart. The elect suck the
child's blood — that is ' the blood of the Lamb !'
The body is left to dry up in another dish full
of sage, then crushed into powder and eaten —
that is ' the flesh of the Lamb !' "
Witchcraft.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it recognizes as a verity the delusion
of witchcraft and punishes with death its vic-
tims.
The God that inspired the account of Saul's
interview with the witch of Endor was as
thorough a believer in witchcraft as the most
superstitious crone of the Middle Ages.
Manasseh "used enchantments, and used
Sacrifices-Cannibalism- Witchcraft. 371
witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and
with wizards " (2 Chron. xxxiii, 6).
Isaiah speaks of "wizards that peep and mut-
ter " (Isa. viii, 19).
Samuel (1 Sam. xv, 23) and Micah (v, 12) and
Nabum (iii, 4) and Paul (Gal. v, 20) all admit
the reality of witchcraft.
The decline in the belief of wizards and
witches denotes a decline of faith in the Bible.
Until a very recent period, those who professed
to believe in the divinity of the Bible also pro-
fessed to believe in the reality of witchcraft.
" Giving up witchcraft," says John Wesley, " is,
in effect, giving up the Bible" (Journal, 1768).
Sir William Blackstone says : " To deny the
possibility — nay, actual existence — of witchcraft
and sorcery is at once flatly to contradict the
revealed word of God in various passages both
of the Old and New Testaments."
Sir Matthew Hale says : " The Bible leaves
no doubt as to the reality of witchcraft and the
duty of putting its subjects to death."
" I should have no compassion on these
witches," said Luther; " I would burn them all"
(Table Talk).
" Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live " (Ex.
xxii, 18).
" A man also or a woman that hath a familiar
spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to
death" (Lev. xx, 27).
Oh, that I could bring to view the suffering and
death these texts have caused ! Millions have
372 Morality of the Bible.
died because of them. One thousand were
burned at Como in one year; 800 were burned
at Wurzburg in one year; 500 perished at Ge-
neva in three months; 80 were burned in a sin-
gle village of Savoy; nine women were burned
in a single fire at Leith; sixty were hanged at
Suffolk; 3,000 were legally executed during one
session of Parliament, while thousands more
were put to death by mobs; Remy, a Christian
judge, executed 800; 600 were burned by ona
bishop at Bamburg; Boguet burned 600 at St.
Cloud; thousands were put to death by the
Lutherans of Norway and Sweden; Catholic
Spain butchered thousands; Presbyterians were
responsible for the death of 4,000 in Scotland;
50,000 were sentenced to death during the reign
of Francis I.; 7,000 died at Treves; the number
killed in Paris in a few months is declared to
have been " almost infinite." Dr. Sprenger
places the total number of executions for witch-
craft in Europe at nine millions. For centuries
witch fires burned in nearly every town of Eu-
rope, and this Bible text, " Thou shall not suf-
fer a witch to live," was the torch that kindled
them.
Four hundred were burned at Toulouse in
one day. Think of it ! Four hundred women —
guilty of no crime, save that which exists in the
diseased imaginations of their accusers — four
hundred mothers, wives, and daughters, taken
out upon the public square, chained to posts,
the fagots piled around them, and burned to
Sacrifices-Cannibalism-- Witchcraft. 3 j$
death ! See them writhing in the flames — listen
to their piteous shrieks — four hundred voices
raised in one wild chorus of agony ! And all
because the Bible says, " Thou shalt not suffer
a witch to live."
Only a few years ago, in the province of Nov-
gorod, Russia, a woman was burnt for witch-
craft. Agrafena was a soldier's widow, and pos-
sessed of more than ordinary gifts of mind.
But ignorance and superstition prevailed around
her. Every strange occurrence, every disease
that could not be accounted for, was the result
of witchcraft. One day a farmer's daughter was
seized with some violent disease, and in her
paroxysms of pain she chanced to breathe
the name of Agrafena. That was enough; Ag-
rafena was a witch. A mob was raised and led
to the widow's dwelling. They called her to the
door, parleyed with her a moment, then thrust
her back into the house, fastened its doors, and
set it on fire. And while it was burning, this
mob, led by Christian priests, stood around it,
singing praises to God — their strains blended
with the shrieks of this dying woman — dying
because the Bible says, " Thou shalt not suffer
a witch to live."
And in our own America the blighting influ-
ence of this delusion and this brutal statute lias
been felt. With the soil of our Republic is
mingled the dust of murdered women— mur-
dered because the Bible says, " Thou shalt not
suffer a witch to live."
374 Morality of the Bible,
CHAPTER XXIX.
SLAVERY— POLYGAMV.
Slavery.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a mora1! guide
because it sanctions the infamous crime of hu-
man slavery.
" Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids,
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen
that are round about you; of them shall ye buy
bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the
children of the strangers that do sojourn among
you; of them shall ye buy, and of their families
that are with you, which they begat in your
land; and they shall be your possession. And
ye shall take them as an inheritance for your
children after you, to inherit them for a pos-
session; they shall be your bondmen forever"
(Lev. xxv, 44-46).
In certain cases they were even permitted to
enslave the members of their own race.
" If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he
shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go. out
free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he
shall go out by himself; if he were married, then
his wife shall go out with him. If his master
Slavery-Polygamy. 375
have given him a wife, and she have borne him
sons or daughters, the wife and her children
shall be her master's and he shall go out by
himself" (Ex. xxi, 2-4).
If he desires his liberty he must desert his
wife and little ones. To become a freeman he
must become an exile.
" And if the servant shall plainly say, I love
my master, my wife, and my children; I will not
go out free, then his master shall bring him
unto the judges; he shall also bring him unto
the door, or unto the door-post; and his master
shall bore his ears through with an awl; and he
shall serve him forever " (5, 6).
" And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of
servants shall he be unto his brethren.
" And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of
Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
" God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall
dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be
his servant " (Gen. ix, 25-27).
Nor is it the Jewish Scriptures alone which
sanction slavery. The Christian Scriptures are
not less emphatic in their indorsement of it.
" Let as many servants as are under the yoke
count their own masters worthy of all honor"
(1 Tim. vi, 1).
" Exhort servants to be obedient unto their
masters " (Titus ii, 9).
" Servants, be obedient to them that are your
masters according to the flesh, with fear and
trembling" (Eph. vi, 5).
376 Morality of the Bible.
" Servants, be subject to your masters with, all
fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also
to the froward" (1 Pet. ii, 18).
It may be urged that the term "servant " here
refers to a hired servant. Not so; wherever the
word " servant " occurs in the New Testament,
it means slave in its worst sense.
The Fugitive Slave law, which made us a
nation of kidnappers, derived its authority from
the New Testament. Paul had established a
precedent by returning a fugitive slave to his
master.
Referring to this act of Paul, the Rev. Dr.
Striugfellow of Virginia wrote :
" Oh, how immeasurably different Paul's con-
duct to this slave and master, from the conduct
of our abolition brethren ! This is sufficient to
teach any man that slavery is not, in the sight
of God, what it is in the sight of the abolition-
ists " (Scriptural View of Slavery).
The Rev. Moses Stuart of Massachusetts
wrote : *
" What, now, have we here? Paul sending
back a Christian servant, who had run away
from his Christian master. . . . Paul's con-
science sent back the fugitive slave. Paul's con-
science, then, like his doctrines, was very differ-
ent from that of the abolitionists."
It was no easy task to convince the Bible
moralist that slavery was wrong. When the
French Revolutionists rejected the Bible, they
abolished slavery in the colonies. When the
Slavery-- Polygamy. 377
church regained control of the government, the
Bible came back, and with it slavery. When
Clarkson's bill for the abolition of slavery was
before Parliament, Lord Chancellor Thurlow
characterized it as a " miserable and contempti-
ble bill," and " contrary to the Word of God."
Charles Bradlaugh, in the North American
Review, writing of his own Christian England,
says:
" George III. , a most Christian king, regarded
abolition theories with abhorrence, and the
Christian House of Lords was utterly opposed
to granting freedom to the slave. When Chris-
tian missionaries, some sixty years ago, preached
to Demerara negroes under the rule of Chris-
tian England, they were treated by Christian
judges, holding commission from Christian Eng-
land, as criminals for so preaching. A Chris-
tian commissioned officer, member of the Es-
tablished Church of England, signed the auction
notices for the sale of slaves as late as 1824."
The most zealous defenders of slavery in this
country were Bible moralists. The Rev. Alex-
ander Campbell wrote: " There is not one verse
in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regu-
lating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."
The Rev. E. D. Simms, professor in Ran-
dolph-Macon College, wrote: "These extracts
from Holy Writ unequivocally assert the right
of property in slaves."
The Rev. R. Furman, D D., Baptist, of South
Carolina, said: " The right of holding slaves is
378 Morality of the Bible.
clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both
by precept and example."
Rev. Thomas Witherspoon, Presbyterian, of
Alabama, said: "I draw my warrant from the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to
hold the slave in bondage."
Said the Rev. Mr. Crawder, Methodist, of Vir-
ginia: " Slavery is not only countenanced, per-
mitted, and regulated by the Bible, but it was
positively instituted by God himself."
You say that this is the testimony of inter-
ested parties, that the South was interested in
perpetuating slavery. True, but where did your
Northern theologians stand?
Rev. Dr. Wilbur Fisk, President of Wesleyan
University, thus wrote: " The New Testament
enjoins obedience upon the slave as an obliga-
tion due to a present rightful authority."
The Rev. Dr. Nathan Lord, President of
Dartmouth College, wrote : " Slavery was in-
corporated into the civil institutions of Moses; it
was recognized accordingly by Christ and his
apostles. They regulated it by the just and
benevolent principles of the New Testament.
They condemned all intermeddlers with it."
Professor Hodge, of Princeton, said : " The
Savior found it around him, the Apostles met
with it in Asia, Greece, and Italy. How did
they treat it ? Not by denunciation of slave-
holding as necessarily sinful."
Said the Rev. Dr. Taylor, Principal of the
Theological Department of Tale College: "I have
Slavery-Polygamy. 379
no doubt that if Jesus Christ were now on earth,
he would, under certain circumstances, become
a slaveholder."
It is now half-forgotten that the North as well
as the South once practiced slavery — that New
England, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsyl-
vania all held slaves. Christian New England,
which made the Bible both its legal and moral
code, for more than one hundred years, held
Negroes and Indians in slavery, and even sold
Quaker children into bondage. " Parish minis-
ters all over New England," says the Rev. Wil-
liam Goodell, " owned slaves " (American Slave
Code, p. 106).
Clerical slaveholders in the South trampled
under foot the relations of wife and mother;
and clerical slaveholders in the North did the
same. Mr. Goodell says :
" Even in Puritan New England, seventy years
ago, female slaves, in ministers' and magistrates'
families, bore children, black or yellow, without
marriage. No one inquired who their fathers
were, and nothing more was thought of it than
of the breeding of sheep or swine" (Ibid., p. 111).
" A Congregational minister at Hampton,
Conn. (Rev. Mr. Mosely), separated by sale a
husband and wife who were both of them mem-
bers of his own church, and who had been, by
his own officiating act as a minister, united in
marriage " (lb., p. 114).
Let me cite one of the laws of the Bible rela-
tive to the treatment of slaves — a law which
380 Morality of the Bible.
demons would blush to indorse, but which a mer-
ciful (?) God enacted for the guidance of his
children:
" If a man smite his servant, or his maid, with
a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be
surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he con-
tinue a day or two, he shall not be punished:
for he is his money " (Ex. xxi, 20, 21).
Here a master may brutally beat his slave,
and if that slave linger in the agonies of death a
day or two before dying, he shall not be pun-
ished, because the slave "is his money."
Goodell's " American Slave Code," a work
written by a Christian clergyman, and which I
have already quoted, contains four hundred
pages of outrages, like the following, committed
by men who accepted the Bible as their moral
guide :
" A minister in South Carolina, a native of
the North, had a stated Sabbath appointment to
preach, about eight miles from his residence.
He was in the habit of ridiug thither in his gig.
Behind him ran his negro slave on foot, who
was required to be at the place of appointment
as soon as his master, to take care of his horse.
Sometimes he fell behind, and kept his master
waiting for him a few minutes, for which he
always received a reprimand, and was some-
times punished. On one occasion of this kind,
after sermon, the master told the slave that he
would take care to have him keep up with him,
going home. So he tied him by the wrists, with
Slavery-Polygamy. 381
a halter, to his gig behind, and drove rapidly
home. The result was that, about two or three
miles from home, the poor fellow's feet and legs
failed him, and he was dragged on the ground
all the rest of the way by the wrists! On alight-
ing and looking round, the master exclaimed,
' Well; I thought you would keep up with me
this time! ' So saying, he coolly walked into the
house. The servants came out and took up the
poor sufferer for dead. After a time he revived
a little, lingered for a day or two, and died! "
Was this brutal minister punished ? He was
not. " If he continue a day or two, he shall not
be punished: for he is his money." Was he
silenced from preaching? was he even repri-
manded by the church ? No. Without punish-
ment, without censure, he continued to preach
Bible morals and abuse his slaves.
Frederick Douglass, the greatest of his race
and a slave, says : " My master found relig-
ious sanctity for his cruelty. ... I have
seen him tie up a lame young woman and whip
her with a heavy cowskin upon her naked shoul-
ders, causing the warm red blood to drip; and,
in justification of the bloody deed, he would
quote this passage of Scripture : ' He that know-
eth his master's will and doeth it not shall be
beaten with many stripes.' "
Slavery flourished on this continent because
the Bible taught that it was lawful and just. To
oppose slavery was to oppose the plainest teach-
ings of this book. The Abolition movement was
382 Morality of the Bible.
an Infidel movement. The Emancipation Proc-
lamation was a nullification of " God's law."
The great Rebellion was a contest between Bible
morality and natural morality. The latter tri-
umphed, but the conflict filled half a million
graves, brought grief to many million hearts,
and covered the land with desolation.
And this advocate of slavery is the idol Prot-
estants worship ; this is the book they wish to
become the law of our land ; this is the moral
guide they wish to place in our public schools !
In the name of those who died for the freedom
of their fellow-men ; in the name of those made
childlessv fatherless, and companionless by this
cruel strife ; in the name of those whose backs
still bear the scars of the master's lash ; in the
name of human liberty, I protest against this
retrogressive movement !
Polygamy.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it sanctions that other twin relic of bar-
barism, polygamy.
The Mosaic law provides that " if a man have
two wives, one beloved and another hated," he
shall not ignore the legal rights of the hated
wife's children (Deut. xxi, 15-17). This statute
recognizes both the existence and the validity
of the institution.
Another statute (Deut. xxv, 5) provides that
if a man die, his surviving brother shall become
the husband of his widow, and this regardless as
to whether the brother be married or single.
Slavery-- Polygamy. 383
The first eighteen verses of the eighteenth
chapter of Leviticus are devoted to what is
termed " unlawful marriages." Here polygamy
is recognized and regulated to the extent of pro-
hibiting a man from marrying the sister of a liv-
ing wife.
But there is one statute which places the
validity of this institution, so far as the Bible
is concerned, beyond all controversy. Deuter-
onomy (xxiii, 2) declares that no illegitimate
child shall enter into the congregation of the
Lord, even up to the tenth generation. Now,
polygamy was either lawful or unlawful. If un-
lawful, then the children of polygamists were
illegitimate children, and disqualified for the
sanctuary. But the children of polygamists
were not thus disqualified. The founders of the
twelve tribes of Israel were all children of a
polygamist.
The most renowned Bible characters were po-
lygamists. Abraham had two wives, and when
he died the Lord said, " Abraham obeyed my
voice, and kept my charge, my commandments,
my statutes, and my laws'' (Gen. xxvi, 5).
Jacob was a polygamist, and after he had se-
cured four wives and concubines, God blessed
him and said, " Be fruitful and multiply " (Gen.
xxxv, 11).
Gideon had " many wives " (Jud. viii, 30), and
it was to him an angel came and said, " The
Lord is with thee " (Jud. vi, 12 .
David had a score of wives and concubines,
384 Morality of the Bible.
and "David was a man after God's own heart;"
" David did right in the eyes of the Lord." God
himself said to David, " I delivered thee out of
the hands of Saul; and I gave thee- thy master's
house and thy master's ivives " (2 Sam. xii, 7, 8).
" And God gave Solomon wisdom and under-
standing exceeding much, and largeness of
heart" — sufficient to hold a thousand wives and
concubines.
Many years ago the Mormon, Orson Pratt,
wrote a defense of polygamy, based upon the
Bible. A noted lawyer of New York sent a copy
of it to the Rev. Dr. W. B, Sprague with the in-
terrogation, " Can you answer this ?" Back
came the frank reply, " No; can you ?"
It is claimed that the New Testament is op-
posed to polygamy. It is not. William Ellery
Channing says :
" There is no prohibition of polygamy in the
New Testament. It is an indisputable fact that
although Christianity was first preached in
Asia, which had been from the earliest ages the
seat of polygamy, the Apostles never denounced
it as a crime, and never required their converts
to put away all wives but one."
Elizabeth Cady Stanton says : " It was at a
Jewish polygamous wedding that Jesus per-
formed his first miracle, and polygamy was
practiced by Christians for centuries."
It is true that many primitive Christians did
not practice polygamy. And why? Because
Pagan Greece and Rome had taught them bet-
r
Slavery- Polygamy. 385
ter. It was to them, and not to their Scriptures,
that they were indebted for the monogamic
system of marriage. The Roman Catholic
church did not generally sustain polygamy; but
it did sustain a system of concubinage which
was certainly as bad. For centuries the keep-
ing of concubines was almost universal among
the Catholic clergy, one abbot keeping no less
than seventy.
The founders of the ProtestaDt church, how-
ever, accepting the Bible as their guide, attach-
ing to it a degree of authority which had never
been attached to it before, were candid and con-
sistent enough to admit the validity of the in-
stitution. Referring to this subject, Sir William
Hamilton, a Christian and a Protestant, says :
" As to polygamy in particular, which not
only Luther, Melanchthon, and Bucer, the three
leaders of the German Reformation, speculat-
ively adopted, but to which above a dozen dis-
tinguished divines among the Reformers stood
formally committed" (Discussions on Philos-
ophy and Literature).
Speaking of Luther and Melanchthon, Hamil-
ton says :
" They had both promulgated opinions in
favor of polygamy, to the extent of vindicating
to the spiritual minister a right of private dis-
pensation, and to the temporal magistrate the
right of establishing the practice if he chose by
public law " (Ibid).
In accordance with these views, John of
386 Morality of the Bible.
Leydon, a zealous Protestant, established polyg-
amy at Minister, and murdered or drove from
their homes all who dared to oppose the odious
custom. Other Protestants followed his exam-
ple.
On the 19th of December, 1539, at Wittenberg,
Luther and Melanchthon drew up the famous
"Consilium," authorizing the landgrave, Philip
of Hesse, to have a plurality of wives. This in-
strument bears the signatures of Martin Luther,
Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, Dionysius
Melander, John Lening. Antony Corvinus, Adam
Kraft, Justus Winther, and Balthasar Raida,
nine of the leading Protestant divines of Ger-
many.
It is a well-known fact that Luther advised
Henry VIII. to adopt polygamy in his case, but
by divorcing two wives, and murdering two
more, the founder of the English church
avoided it.
The advocacy of polygamy by the chief Re-
formers prevented Ferdinand I. from declaring
for the Reformation. The German princes, too,
generally opposed it; and this opposition,
coupled with the fact that the most licentious
sects espoused it, finally caused a reaction in
favor of monogamy.
Protestants, it ill became you to point the
finger of scorn at the Mormons of Utah. Yet
with characteristic consistency you were de-
manding the suppression of polygamy in the
territories, while at the same time you were en-
Slavery-Polygamy. 387
deavoring to have the whole country accept as
infallible authority a book which sanctions the
pernicious custom. Make the Bible the funda-
mental law of the land, as you demand, and po-
lygamy will become, in theory at least, a
national instead of a local institution.
388 Morality of the Bible.
CHAPTER XXX.
ADULTERY— OBSCENITY.
Adultery
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it sanctions adultery and prostitution.
AdulterjT is made prominent by the recital of
the numerous adulteries of Abraham, Lot, Jacob,
Judah, Samson, David, and other Bible saints,
and sanctified by the approved adulteries of
Abraham and Jacob.
Both Abraham and Isaac were willing to sell
the virtue of their wives to save themselves
from harm.
Two instances are recorded of fathers having
offered their own daughters to gratify the lust
of a sensual mob, and these abominable acts are
represented as especially meritorious. Read the
nineteenth chapter of Genesis and the nine-
teenth chapter of Judges; dwell upon the eighth
verse of the former and the twenty-fourth verse
of the latter; and then, if you can indorse the
spirit of these narratives, you are unfit to be the
parent of a daughter.
The Mosaic law authorizes a father to sell his
daughter for a concubine or mistress (euphe-
Adultery-Obscenity. 389
mistically translated " maid servant "). God's
instructions respecting the thirty-two thousand
captive Midianite maidens impliedly sanction
concubinage and prostitution.
These Bible teachings have been the cause of
countless outrages against the chastity of wo-
man. John Wesley says :
" Almost all the soldiers in the Christian
world . . . have claimed, more especially
in time of war, another kind of liberty : that of
borrowing the wives and daughters of the men
that fell into their hands " (Wesley's Miscel-
laneous Works, Vol. III., p. 117).
Luther, drawing his morality from the Bible,
gave concubinage his indorsement :
" There is nothing unusual in princes keeping
concubines; and although the lower orders may
not perceive the excuses of the thing, the more
intelligent know how to make allowance " (Con-
silium .
Luther might with equal truthfulness have
said, " There is nothing unusual in priests and
preachers keeping concubines," and he might
have helped to confirm it by a few leaves from
his own private history. In a letter to his con-
fidential friend, Spalatin, he confessed to num-
erous adulteries.
God instructs his prophet Hosea to marry a
prostitute. He subsequently commands him to
love and hire an adulteress (Hosea i, 2, 3; iii,
1, 2).
Christ forgave the woman taken in adultery,
390 Morality of the Bible.
while bis favorite female companion was a re-
formed (?) prostitute. Referring to his female
ancestors, Dr. Alexander Walker, a Christian,
says :
" It is remarkable that in the genealogy of
Christ only four women have been named:
Tamar, who seduced the father of her late hus-
band; Rachab, a common prostitute; Ruth, who,
instead of marrying one of her cousins, went to
bed with another of them, and Bathsheba, an
adultress, who espoused David, the murderer of
her husband " (Woman, p. 330).
The early Christians were notorious for their
adulteries. Dr. Cave, in his " Primitive Chris-
tianity " (Part II., ch. v), says it was commonly
charged " that the Christians knew one another
by certain privy marks and signs, and were
wont to be in love almost before they knew one
another; that they exercised lust and filthiness
under a pretense of religion, promiscuously
calling themselves brothers and sisters, that by
the help of so sacred a name their common
adulteries might become incestuous."
Of the Carpocratians, who Dr. Lardner says
" are not accused of rejecting any part of the
New Testament," Dr. Cave says : " Both men
and women used to meet at supper (which was
called their love-feast), when after they had
loaded themselves with a plentiful meal, to pre-
vent all shame, if they had any remaining, they
put out the lights, and then promiscuously
mixed in filthiness with one another " (Ibid).
Adultery-Obscenity. 391
In his Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul says :
"It is reported commonly that there is fornica-
tion among you, and such fornication as is not
so much as named among the gentiles " (1 Cor0
v,l).
It is an indisputable fact that the most noto-
rious adulterers are those whose profession
makes them most familiar with the teachings of
the Bible, and compels them to accept its
teachings as divine.
Obscenity.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide,
and protest against its being placed in the
hands of the young, because its pages are de-
filed with obscenity.
Aside from thousands of coarse and vulgar
expressions contained in it, there are at least a
hundred passages so obscene that their appear-
ance in any other book would exclude that book
from the mails and send its publisher to prison.
The United States courts have declared parts of
the Bible to be obscene. There are entire chap-
ters, such as the thirty-eighth chapter of Genesis,
that reek with obscenity from beginning to end.
In proof of the charge of obscenity, I refer
you to the following: Isaiah xxxvi, 12; Ezek. iv,
12-15; Gen. xix, 30-36; xxx, 1-16; xxxviii; 2
Kings xviii, 27; Lev. xv, 16-33; Job xl, 16, 17; 1
Kings xiv, 10; Isaiah iii, 17.
That portions of the Bible are obscene and
unfit to be read, is admitted even by Christians.
592 Morality of the Bible.
Noah Webster, a Protestant, edited an expur-
gated edition of the Sible. In vindication of
his work, he says :
"Many passages are expressed in language
which decency forbids to be repeated in fam-
ilies and in the pulpit."
The Rev. Dr. Embree, Methodist, of Kansas,
in a speech before the Topeka School Board
advocating the reading of Bible selections in
the public schools of that city, recently said :
" I would not want the Bible read indiscrim-
inately. I think some of it unfit to be read by
any one."
The Rev. Father Maguire, Catholic, in his de-
bate with the Rev. Mr. Greg, at Dublin, gave
utterance to the following :
" I beg of you not to continue such a practice;
it is disreputable. I will ask Mr. Greg a ques-
tion (and I beg of you, my brethren of the
Protestant church, to bear this in mind), I will
ask him if he dare to take up the Bible and lead
from the book of Genesis the fact of Onan — I
ask him will he read that? Will he read the
fact relative to Lot and his two daughters? Will
he read these and many other passages which I
could point out to him in the Holy Bible, which
I would not take one thousand guineas, nay, all
the money in the world, and read them here to-
day?"
Richard Lalor Shiel, M. P , and Privy Coun-
selor to the Queen, thus wrote:
"Part of the Holy Writings consist of history,
Adultery-Obscenity. 393
and the narration of facts of a kind that cannot
be mentioned in the presence of a virtuous wo-
man without exciting horror. Shall a woman be
permitted to read in her chamber what she
would tremble to hear at her domestic board ?
Shall she con over and revolve what she would
rather die than utter ?"
And if unfit for the perusal of a matured wo-
man, shall innocent childhood be polluted by
these vile, indecent tales ?
394 Morality of the Bible.
CHAPTEB XXXI.
INTEMPERANCE VAGRANCY-
IGNORANCE.
Intemperance.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it fosters the evil of intemperance.
While the sacred books of Buddhists and Mo-
hammedans, by forbidding the use of intoxicat-
ing drinks, have contributed to make drunken-
ness among these people disreputable and rare,
the Bible, by encouraging their use, has made
intemperance in Christian countries frightfully
prevalent and almost respectable.
" Thou shalt bestow that money for whatso-
ever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen or for sheep,
or for wine, or for strong drink" (Deut. xiv, 26).
" Give strong drink unto him that is ready to
perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy
hearts. Let him drink and forget his poverty,
and remember his misery no more " (Prov. xxxi,
6,7).
" Drink no longer water, but use a little wine
for thy stomach's sake" (1 Tim. v, 23).
u Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and
drink thy wine with a merry heart , for God
now accepteth thy works " (Eccies. ix, 7).
Intemperance, Vagrancy, Etc. 395
"Corn shall make the young men cheerful,
and new wine the maids " (Zech. ix, 17).
" They shall plant vineyards and drink the
wine thereof" (Amos ix, 14).
"Wine that maketh glad the heart of man "
(Ps. civ, 15).
" Wine which cheereth God and man " (Jud.
ix, 13).
"In ttie holy place shalt thou cause the
strong wine to be poured unto the Lord for a
drink offering" (Num. xxviii, 7).
Will that wing of the Prohibition army which
accepts the Bible as its guide inscribe these
texts upon its banner ?
As a reward for the Jews keeping the judg-
ments of the Lord he was to bless their wine
(Deut. vii, 13).
Liberal giving to the Lord was to be rewarded
with an abundance of wine.
" Honor the Lord with thy substance, and
with the first fruits of all thine increase : so
shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy
presses shall burst out with new wine" (Prov.
iii, 9, 10).
One of the most direful calamities was a wine
famine.
"Awake, ye drunkards, and weep; and howl, all
ye drinkers of wine, because of the new wine ;
for it is cut off from your mouth. . . . The
drink offering is cut off from the house of the
Lord ; the priests, the Losd's ministers, mourn.
, . . Gird yourselves and lament, ye priests
396 Morality of the Bible.
howl, ye ministers of the altar; come, lie all
night in sackcloth, ye ministers of my God ; for
. . . the drink offering is withholden from the
house of your God " (Joel i, 5, 9, 13).
God's especial favorites had a weakness for
wine. When he drowned the world's inhabit-
ants he saved Noah, knowing that as soon as the
waters subsided he would plant a t vineyard,
make wine, and become intoxicated. When
Sodom was destroyed the only righteous man he
found was that foul drunkard, Lot. When
David made his celebrated feast in honor of the
Lord he gave to every man and woman a flagon
of wine! He kept some for himself and so
merry did his heart become that he "danced be-
fore the Lord with all his might."
Thus joyously sings Solomon : "I have drunk
my wine with my milk [milk punch] ; eat, O
friends ! drink, yea, drink abundantly." In the
morning he sings another song : "Open to me
. . . my love . . . for my head is rilled
with dew." How many a wayward fellow like
Solomon has risen from the gutter, sorrowfully
wended his way home, and serenaded his sleep-
ing spouse with that same melody !
When Solomon erected his temple to God he
gave to his laborers " twenty thousand baths
[nearly 175 000 gallons] of wine" (2 Ohron. ii, 10).
The Nazarite, it is claimed, was commanded
to abstain from wine. Yes, but only during
the period of his separation. " After that the
Nazarite may drink wine" (Num. vi, 20).
N
Intemperance, Vagrancy, Etc. 397
God commanded Jeremiah to tempt with wine
those who abstained from its use :
" Go unto the house of the Rechabites and
speak with them, and bring them into the house
of the Lord, into one of the chambers, and give
them wine to drink" (Jer. xxxv, 2).
Christ spoke as follows :
"John the Baptist came neither eating bread
nor drinking wine. . . . The Son of Man is
come eating and drinking ; and ye say, Behold a
gluttonous man and a winebibber " (Luke, vii,
33, 34).
This censure was evidently not unmerited.
The first act in Christ's ministerial career was
to manufacture three barrels of wine for a wed-
ding feast ; his last recorded act was a benedic-
tion upon the wine cup.
Theology being no longer in demand, the Prot-
estant clergy, contrary to the teachings of the
Bible, and the traditions of the church, now
find it popular and profitable to espouse the
cause of temperance. But in championing one
rational virtue they employ two Christian vices,
hypocrisy and intolerance. The most inconsist-
ent, the most uncharitable opponents of the
liquor traffic to-day are these fresh converts
who profess to be doing their master's will and
who claim that his Word is the advocate of
total abstinence and prohibitory laws. With
fierce invective they declaim against the old
God Bacchus, yet every anathema they hurl at
398 Morality of the Bible.
him will apply with equal justice to their God
and Christ.
One of the most unscrupulous arguments ever
adduced in support of any cause is that now ad-
vanced by some Christian temperance advocates
to the effect that the wine sanctioned in the
Bible was not intoxicating. With the same
ease that they declare that in the Bible " black"
means "white," that "hate" means "love," and
"day" means "age," they declare that Bible wine
does not mean wine, but uufermented grape juice.
The Rev. Dr. W. M. Thompson, Rev. Will-
iam Wright, Rev. S. H. Calhoun, Rev. C. V. A.
Van Dyke, and other able Hebrew and Sanscrit
scholars of Western Asia, who have made the
history and customs of its people" both ancient
and modern a life study, affirm that such a thing
as non-intoxicating wine was unknown, that the
unfermented juice of the grape was never recog-
nized as wine. Dr. Philip Schaff, the fore-
most Bible scholar of this country, affirms the
same:
"The wine of the Bible was no doubt pure
and unadulterated. ... It was genuine and
real wine, and, like all wine in use in grape-
growing countries, exhilarating. To lay down
the principle that the use of intoxicating drink
as a beverage is a sin — per se— is to condemn
the greater part of Christendom, to contradict
the Bible, and to impeach Christ himself, who
drank wine and made wine by miracle to supply
the marriage guests."
Intemperance, Vagrancy, Etc. 399
At the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
church held at Belfast, Ireland, in 1870, an ex-
haustive examination and discussion was given
this subject. The result .was the adoption by
an almost unanimous vote of the following reso-
lution offered by the Rev. Robert Wales, Pro-
fessor of Dialectic Theology, Belfast :
" As the wine used in the oblations of the Old
Testament time at the Passover and by our
Lord Jesus Christ himself in the institution of
the supper was the ordinary wine of the coun-
try, that is, the fermented juice of the grape, we
cannot sanction the use of the unfermented juice
of the grape as a symbol in the ordinance."
That the sacramental wine used by the early
Christians was intoxicating, and that they were
addicted to using it to excess at the Lord's
Supper, is admitted by Paul (1 Cor. xi, 20-
34).
Referring to this subject, the Christian Regis-
ter says : " We deplore intemperance, and wel-
come every truthful argument against it, but the
argument founded on the non-intoxicating char-
acter of Bible wine is a weak and diluted fal-
lacy."
Uaarancy.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it encourages poverty and vagrancy.
Jesus Christ was the panegyrist of poverty
and the promoter of vagrancy :
" Blessed be ye poor " (Luke vi, 20).
400 Morality of the Bible.
"But woe unto you that are rich" (Luke vi,
24).
" A rich man shall hardly enter into the king-
dom of heaven" (Matt, xix, 23).
" It is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into
the kingdom of God " (Mark x, 25).
" Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon
earth " (Matt, vi, 19).
When the judicious use of wealth is promo-
tive of human happiness, and when poverty is
the source of so much misery and crime, such
teachings are not only false, but pernicious.
" Take no thought for your life, what ye shall
eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your
body what ye shall put on. . . . Behold the
fowls of the air : for they sow not, neither do
they reap, nor gather into barns. . . . And
why take ye thought for raiment ? Consider the
lilies of the field, how they grow ; they toil not,
neither do they spin. . . . Therefore take
no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or,
What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we
be clothed? . . . The morrow shall take
thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto
the day is the evil thereof" (Matt, vi, 25-34).
To-day our land is infested with an army of
tramps. Their skirmishers are deployed along
every highway ; their points of attack are the
kitchen and the haymow ; their text-book on
military science is the Sermon on the Mount.
" They sow not, neither do they reap;" " They
Intemperance, Vagrancy, Etc. 401
toil not, neither do they spin.' They beg and
steal. These are Christ's followers — the truest
followers he has on earth to-day.
In the streets of our cities we see men clad in
rags, idle, and drunken, and penniless. We see
them arrested for vagrancy, thrust into prison,
or made to labor for their bread. These are
Christ's martyrs.
Poor tramp and vagrant ! How you are " per-
secuted for righteousness' sake! " Men despise
you; the farmer drives you from his door; the
social economist racks his brain to devise a
plan for your suppression ; state governments
legislate against you ; everywhere you are treated
as an outcast — and all because, taking the Bible
for your guide, you endeavor faithfully to con-
form to its teachings.
Ignorance.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it condemns the use of reason and the
acquisition of knowledge.
'• Of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, thou shalt not eat of it' (Gen. ii, 17).
"She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat,
and gave also unto her husband with her; and
he did eat. And the eyes of them both were
opened ' (iii, 6, 7).
" Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from
the garden of Eden' (23).
"He that believeth not shall be damned'
(Mark xvi, 16).
402 Morality of the Bible.
For partaking of the fruit of the tree of
knowledge, our parents were banished from
Paradise ; for obeying the dictates of reason, we
are consigned to hell.
Education, physical, moral, and intellectual,
is discouraged.
Bodily exercise profiteth little. — Paul.
Be not righteous overmuch. — Solomon.
Neither make thyself over wise.— Solomon.
Choice mottoes, the above, to hang up on the
walls of the school-room !
" Beware lest any man spoil you through phi-
losophy " (Col. ii, 8).
"Knowledge puffeth up " (1 Cor. viii, 1).
" Thy wisdom and thy knowledge it hath per-
verted thee " (Isa. xlvii, 10).
"I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to
know madness and folly ; I perceived that this
also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom
is much grief ; and he that increaseth knowl-
edge increaseth sorrow '' (Ecles. i, 17, 18).
" If any man be ignorant let him be ignorant ''
(1 Cor. xiv, 38).
"The wisdom of this world is foolishness with
God" (1 Cor. iii, 19).
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
knowledge " (Prov. i, 7).
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of igno-
rance. This fear has kept the world in intellect-
ual bondage. It is a flaming sword that priest-
craft has placed in every highway of learning to
frighten back the timid searchers after truth.
Intemperance, Vagrancy Etc. 403
"The clergy, with a few honorable excep-
tions," says Buckle, " have in all modern coun-
tries been the avowed enemies of the diffusion
of knowledge, the danger of which to their own
profession they, by a certain instinct, seem
always to have perceived."
The Bible, and the religion emanating from it,
are the fruitful parents of ignorance and idiocy.
They demand a sacrifice of the very attribute
which exalts the man of sense above the idiot ;
they bid him pluck out the eyes of Keason, and
in their place insert the sightless balls of Faith.
"Reason should be destroyed in all Chris-
tians," says Luther (L- Uugedr. Pred. Bru., p.
106).
"One destitute of reason," is a phrase em-
ployed by Webster to define the word " fool."
" We are fools for Christ's sake," exclaims
Paul (1 Cor. iv, 10).
404 Morality of the Bible.
CHAPTER XXXII.
INJUSTICE TO WOMEN— UNKIND-
NESS TO CHILDREN— CRUELTY
TO ANIMALS.
Injustice to tUcmen.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it has degraded woman.
The holy offices of wife and mother it covers
with reproach. Its teachings carried out, as
they were during the centuries of Christian
rule, leave woman but two paths in which to
tread — the one leading into slavery, the other
into exile. Servitude in the house of a husband,
or self-banishment into a convent — these are
the sad alternatives presented for her choice.
" Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he
shall rule over thee " (Gen. iii, 16).
" Wives, submit yourselves to your own hus-
bands " (Col. iii, 18).
" As the church is subject unto Christ so let
the wives be to their own husbands in every-
thing " (Eph. v, 24).
" Let your women keep silence in the
churches, for it is not permitted unto them to
speak, but they are commanded to be under
Injustice to Women. 405
obedience, as also saith the law. And if they
will learn anything, let them ask their husbands
at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak
in the church " (1 Cor. xiv, 34, 35).
" Ye wives, be in subjection to your own hus-
bands. . . . For after this manner in the
old time the holy women also, who trusted in
God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to
their own husbands; even as Sarah obeyed Abra-
ham, calling him lord " (1 Peter iii, 1-6).
" Let woman learn in silence with all subjec-
tion. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to
usurp authority over the man, but to be in
silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman be-
ing deceived was in the transgression " (1 Tim.
ii, 11-14).
Oh ! the unspeakable outrage that woman has
suffered because of that old Jewish fable !
The teachings of the Bible respecting mar-
riage are an insult to every married woman.
Christ discouraged marriage (Matt, xix, 10-12),
while a more despicable dissertation on mar-
riage than Paul gives in the seventh chapter of
1 Corinthians was never penned.
In contracting matrimonial alliances, woman's
rights and choice are not consulted. The father
does his daughter's courting, and sells or gives
her to whom he pleases. A father is even al-
lowed to sell his daughter for a slave (Ex. xxi,
7). In the Decalogue the wife is classed with
slaves and cattle as a mere chattel.
406 Morality of the Bible.
Kidnapping is commanded for the purpose of
obtaining wives.
" Therefore they [God's priests] commanded
the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in
wait in the vineyards; and see, and, behold, if
the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in
dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and
catch you every man his wife of the daughters
of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin. . . .
And the children of Benjamin did so, and took
them wives according to their number of them
that danced whom they caught " (Jud. xxi, 20-
23).
The Levitical law makes motherhood a sin
that can be expiated only by offering a sin offer-
ing at the birth of every child. The degree
of sinfulness depends upon the sex of the child;
giving birth to a daughter being esteemed a
greater sin than giving birth to a son (Lev.
xii).
The laws of the Bible in regard to divorce are
most unjust. A husband is permitted to divorce
his wife if she displease him, while a wife is
not allowed to obtain a divorce for any cause
whatever.
"When a man hath taken a wife, and marries
her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in
his eyes, . . . then let him write her a bill
of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and
send her out of his house " (Deut. xxiv, 1).
"When thou goest forth to war against thine
enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered
Injustice to Women. 407
them into thine hands, and thou hast taken
them captive, and seest among the captives a
beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her,
that thou wouldst have her to thy wife; hen
thou shalt bring her home to thine house. . . .
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her,
then thou shalt let her go whither she will"
(Deut, xxi, 10-14).
Wives were compelled to suffer outrage for
the sins of their husbands.
" Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up
evil against thee out of thine own house, and I
will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give
them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with
thy wives in the sight of this sun " (2 Sam.
xii, 11).
" Their houses shall be spoiled and their
wives ravished " (Is. xiii, 16).
" I will gather all nations against Jerusalem
to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the
houses rifled, and the women ravished" (Zech.
xiv, 2),
" Let their wives be bereaved of their children
and be widows " (Jer. xviii, 21).
The teachings of the Bible have been used by
the church to keep woman in a subordinate po-
sition.
" There is not a more cruel chapter in his-
tory," says Dr. Moncure D. Conway, " than that
which records the arrest by Christianity of the
natural growth of European civilization regard-
ing woman. In Germany it found woman par-
408 Morality of the Bible.
ticipating in the legislative assembly, and shar-
ing the interests and counsels of man, and drove
her out and away. . . . Even more fatal
was the overthrow of woman's position in
Rome. Read the terrible facts as stated by
Gibbon, by Milman, and Sir Henry Maine; read
and ponder them, and you will see the tre-
mendous wrong that Christianity did to wo-
man."
Even the priceless virtue of chastity, in the
name of law and in the name of the Bible, was
trampled under foot. Mrs. Gage, in " Woman,
Church, and State," says :
" Women were taught by the church and state
alike that the feudal lord, or seigneur, had a
right to them, not only against themselves, but
as against any claim of husband or father. The
law known as Marchetta, or Marquette, com-
pelled newly-married women to a most dishon-
orable servitude. They were regarded as the
rightful prey of the feudal lord from one to
three days after their marriage. . . . France,
Germany, Prussia, England, Scotland, and all
Christian countries where feudalism existed,
held to the enforcement of Marquette."
Respecting this law, Miclielet writes : " The
lords spiritual had this right no less than the
lords temporal. The parson, being a lord, ex-
pressly claimed the first fruits of the bride"
(La Sorcerie, page 62).
In this country, while the most illiterate and
depraved man is clothed with the rights of a
Unkindness to Children. 409
sovereign, the noblest woman is held in a sub-
ordinate position; and from the Bible, priests
and politicians have procured the chains that
hold her in subjection.
Referring to the Bible, America's greatest
woman, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, says : " I know
of no other books that so fully teach the sub-
jection and degradation of woman " (Eighty
Tears and More).
Brave Helen Gardener says : "Every injustice
that has ever been fastened upon women in a
Christian country has been ' authorized by the
Bible ' and riveted and perpetuated by the pul-
pit " (Men, Women, and Gods, page 14).
"Women are indebted to-day for their
emancipation from a position of hopeless deg-
radation, not to their religion nor to Jehovah,
but to the justice and honor of the men who have
defied his commandments. That she does not
crouch to-day where St. Paul tried to bind her,
she owes to the men who are grand and brave
enough to ignore St. Paul, and rise superior to
his God " (Ibid, page 30).
George W. Foote of England says it will yet
be the proud boast of woman that she never
contributed a line to the Bible.
Unkindness to Children.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because its teachings respecting the treatment
of children are cruel and unjust.
4-IO Morality of the Bible.
It advocates the use of corporal punishment
for children.
" Thou shalt beat him with the rod " Prov.
xxiii, 14).
" Withhold not correction from the child: for
if thou beatest him with the rod he shall not
die " (Ibid xxiii, 13).
" Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child;
but the rod of correction shall drive it far from
him " (Ibid xxii, 15).
" The rod and reproof give wisdom " Ibid
xxix, 15).
It advocates capital punishment for children:
" If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son,
which will not obey the voice of his mother,
and that when they have chastened him will
not hearken unto them ; then shall his father
and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him
out unto the elders of his city, and unto the
gate of his place. . . And all the men of the
city shall stone him with stones that he die "
(Deut. xxi, 18, 19, 21).
It advocates the indiscriminate and merciless
slaughter of little children:
"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces
before their eyes " (Isa. xiii, 16).
" Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath
rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the
sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces "
(Hosea xiii, 16).
"As he [Elisha] was going up by the way,
there came forth little children out of the city,
Cruelty to Animals. 411
and mocked him. . . . And he turned back,
and looked on them, and cursed them in the
name of the Lord. And there came forth two
she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and
two children of them " (2 Kings ii, 23, 24).
It advocates the punishment of children for
the misdeeds of their parents.
" I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visit-
ing the iniquity of the fathers upon the chil-
dren" (Ex. xx, 5).
I will stir up the Medes against them, . .
their eye shall not spare children " (Isa. xiii,
17, lb).
"I will also send wild beasts among you,
which shall rob you of your children " (Lev.
xxvi, 22).
David prays that the children of his adversa-
ries may become vagabonds and beggars; and
Jeremiah, that the children of his enemies may
perish by famine.
God kills Bath-sheba's child :
"And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's
wife bore unto David, and it was very sick. . . .
And it came to pass on the seventh day that the
child died " (2 Sam. xii, 15-18).
Poor babe ! tortured and murdered for its
parents' crime !
Cruelty to Animals.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it sanctions and enjoins unkindness and
cruelty to animals.
412 Morality of the Bible.
Portions of the Old Testament, and particu-
larly those relating to sacrifices, are calculated
to foster a spirit of brutality, and a total disre-
gard for animal life. God revels in the blood
of the innocent. The offering of fruits made by
Cain is rejected by him; the bloody sacrifice of
Abel is accepted.
Nearly the entire book of Leviticus is devoted
to such laws as these:
"If he offer a lamb for his offering, then shall
he offer it before the Lord. And he shall lay
his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill
it before the tabernacle of the congregation; and
Aaron's sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof
round about upon the altar " (Lev. iii, 7, 8).
"And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to
the Lord be of fowls, then he shall bring his
offering of turtle-doves, or of young pigeons.
And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and
wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and
the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side
of the altar " (Lev. i, 14, 15).
The minutest directions for conducting these
bloody sacrifices come from the lips of Jehovah
himself, and are too brutal and disgusting to
repeat.
The number of animals sacrificed was incred-
ible. At times whole herds were killed. On
one occasion Asa sacrificed 700 oxen and 7,000
sheep. David made an offering of 1,000 bul-
locks and 2,000 sheep. At the dedication of the
Cruelty to Animals. 413
temple, 142,000 domestic beasts were sacrificed
by Solomon.
And this wholesale slaughter of innocent ani-
mals, we are told, was highly pleasing to the
Lord. But
" What was his high pleasure In
The fumes of scorching flesh and smoking blood,
To the pain of the bleating mothers, which
Still yearned for their dead offspring? or the pangs
Of the sad ignorant victim underneath
The pious knife?"
— Byron.
A God of mercy, it would seem, ought to pro-
tect the weaker orders of his creation; but the
God of the Bible manifests an utter disregard
for them. When the being created in his own
image proved too true a copy, and he wished to
destroy it, he sent a deluge, "and all flesh died
that moved upon the earth." To wreak his
vengeance upon Pharaoh, he visited with dis-
ease and death his unoffending cattle. In times
of war, he ordered his followers to " slay both
man and beast." Saul's great transgression,
the chief cause of his dethronement and death,
was that he saved alive some sheep and oxen
instead of killing them as God desired. David
and Joshua, God's favorite warriors, houghed
the horses of their enemies, and thus disabled
turned them loose to die.
We teach a child that it is wrong to rob the
nests of birds. It opens the Bible and reads:
"If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in
the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether
4.14 Morality of the Bible.
they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting
upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt
not take the dam with the young; but thou shalt
in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to
thee " (Deut. xxii, 6, 7).
Throughout Christendom " man's inhumanity
to man" is only equaled by his cruelty to the
inferior animals. The Buddhist, who has not
the Bible for his guide, considers it a sin to
harm the meanest creature. Even the savage
kills only what he needs for food, or such as
threaten him with danger. But the Christian,
whose Bible gives him dominion over the beasts
of the field and the fowls of the air, maims and
murders in pure wantonness, and after years of
patient service, even turns his beast of burden
out to die of hunger and neglect.
For the sake of these dumb creatures, would
that our world had less theology, and more hu-
manity; had fewer Moodys, and more Henry
Berghs !
Tyranny. 415
CHAPTER XXXIII.
TYRANNY— INTOLERANCE.
tyranny.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because it enjoins submission to tyrants.
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of
man, . . . whether it be to the king as su-
preme; or unto governors " (1 Pet. ii, 13).
" Let every soul be subject unto the higher
powers. For there is no power but of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, re-
sisteth the ordinance of God; and they that
resist shall receive to themselves damnation"
(Rom. xiii, 1, 2).
And these sentiments were uttered when a
Nero sat upon the throne — when Palestine was
being crushed heneath the iron heel of despot-
ism— when brave and patriotic men were strug-
gling for freedom.
The Bible has ever been the bulwark of tyr-
anny. When the oppressed millions of France
were endeavoring to throw off their yoke — when
the Washingtons, the Franklins, the Paines, and
the Jeffersons were contending for American
liberty — craven priests stood up in the pulpit,
416 Morality of the Bible.
opened this book, and gravely read : " The pow-
ers that be are ordained of God; they that resist
shall receive to themselves damnation."
In the American Revolution every Tory was a
Christian, and nearly every orthodox Christian
was a Tory. Writing in 1777, John Wesley says:
" I have just received two letters from New
York. . . . They inform me that all the
Methodists there were firm for the government,
and on that account persecuted by the rebels "
(Wesley's Miscellaneous Works, Vol. III., page
410).
Referring to our Revolutionary fathers, Rob-
ert Dale Owen says :
" I know not what the private opinions of
those sturdy patriots were, who, in the old
Philadelphia State House, appended their sig-
natures to the immortal document. But this
I do know, that when they did so, it was in defi-
ance of the Bible; it was in direct violation of
the law of the New Testament.
" If a Being who cannot lie penned the Bible,
then George Washington and every soldier who
drew sword in the Republic's armies for liberty
expiate, at this moment, in hell-fire, the punish-
ment of their ungodly strife ! There, too, John
Hancock and every patriot whose name stands
to America's Title Deed, have taken their places
with the devil and his angels ! All resisted the
power; all, unless God lie, have received to
themselves damnation " (Bacheler-Owen De-
bate, Vol. II., page 230).
Tyranny. 417
From the first century to the twentieth — from
Paul to Leo — these Bible teachings have dom-
inated the Christian world. Of the early Chris-
tian Fathers, Lecky writes :
"The teaching of the early Fathers on the
subject is perfectly unanimous and unequiv-
ocal. Without a single exception, all who
touched upon the subject pronounced active
resistance to the established authorities to be
under all circumstances sinful " (Rationalism in
Europe, Vol. II., page 136).
Jeremy Taylor, one of the greatest of modern
divines, speaking not for himself alone, but for
all Christians, says :
" The matter of Scripture being so plain that
it needs no interpretation, the practice and doc-
trine of the church, which is usually the best
commentary, is now but of little use in a case
so plain; yet this also is as plain in itself, and
without any variety, dissent, or interruption uni-
versally agreed upon, universally practiced and
taught, that, let the powers set over us be what
they will, we must suffer it and never right our-
selves " (Ductor Dubitantium, Book III., chap-
ter iii).
This has been the chief cause of Christian
triumph and Christian supremacy. It has se-
cured for the church the adherence and support
of every tyrant in Christendom. Thomas Jeffer-
son truly says :
" In every country and in every age the priest
has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alii-
4i 8 Morality of the Bible.
ance with the despot, abetting his abuses in
return for protection to his own."
Writing of his country and his country's
church, Macaulay says :
" The Church of England continued to be for
more than 150 years the servile handmaid of
monarchy, the steady enemy of public liberty.
The divine right of kings and the duty of pas-
sively obeyirjg all their commands were her
favorite tenets. She held these tenets firmly
through times of oppression, persecution, and
licentiousness, while law was trampled down,
while judgment was perverted, while the people
were eaten as though they were bread " (Es-
says, Vol. I., page 60).
Intolerance.
I refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide
because its teachings have filled the world with
intolerance and persecution.
" 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, which thou hast not known, thou nor thy
fathers : namely, of the gods of the people
which are round about you [that is, accept an-
other religion] . . . thou shalt not consent
unto him ; neither shall thine eye pity him ;
neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou con-
ceal him; but thou shalt surely kill him ; thine
hand shall be first upon him to put him to death,
Intolerance. 419
and afterwards the hand of all the people "
(Deut: xiii, 6-9).
Kill your friend, kill your brother, kill your
wife, kill your child, for accepting another relig-
ious belief !
Did a merciful God inspire this prayer?
" Let his days be few ; and let another take
his office. Let his children be fatherless, and
his wife a widow. Let his children be continu-
ally vagabonds, and beg ; let them seek their
bread also out of their desolate places. Let the
extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the
strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none
to extend mercy unto him; neither let there be
any to favor his fatherless children" (Ps. cix, 8-
12).
1 In the literature of the world there is noth-
ing more heartless, more infamous, than the
109th Psalm."— Icgersoll.
Let me quote from the New Testament :
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved ; but he that believeth not shall be
damned" (Mark xvi, 16).
" Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting
fire"' (Matt, xxv, 41).
" These shall go away into everlasting punish-
ment" (Matt, xxv, 46).
" Cast into hell, into the fire that never shall
be quenched " (Mark ix; 45).
These passages ought to consign to ever-
lasting abhorrence the being who uttered
them, the book containing them, and the
420 Morality of the Bible.
church indorsing them. This dogma of end-
less punishment is the dogma of fiends, the
most infamous dogma that human lips have ever
breathed ! What needless terror it has inspired!
What misery it has caused ! Think of the mill-
ions of innocent children whose young lives it
has filled with gloom ! This horrible nightmare
of hell has strewn the pathway of childhood with
thorns where flowers should have been made to
bloom ; it has filled the minds of children with
fear and made them wretched when their hearts
should have been filled with joy ; it has robbed
home of wife and mother, it has driven thou-
sands of pure and loving women to madness
and despair. I had rather trace my descent to
the tiger or hyena than to the creation of a God
who dooms his creatures to eternal pain ; and
the time will come when the remembrance of
the theologians who have taught this hideous
lie will provoke more shame and pity than the
ancestral apes do now.
" If there come any unto you, and bring not
this doctrine, receive him not into your house"
(2 John i, 10).
Amid the storms of a winter night, a traveler,
perishing with cold and hunger, knocks at your
door and begs for food and shelter. Tou inter-
rogate him as to his religious belief, and finding
that he is not a member of your church you for-
bid him to enter. In the morning when you
discover his lifeless body by the roadside, how
Intolerance. 421
impressed you will be with the transcendent
beauty of Bible morals !
Paul preached a sermon on charity, and then
wrote to the Galatians as follows :
"If any man preach any other gospel unto you
than that ye have received, let him be accursed''
(Gal. i, 9).
From the same pen, too, came this sneaking,
infamous hint :
" I would they were even cut off which trouble
you" (Gal. v, 12).
What ghastly fruits these teachings have pro-
duced ! We see earth covered with the yellow
bones of murdered heretics and scholars ; we
see the persecutions and butcheries of Constan-
tine, of Theodosius, of Clovis, of Justinian, and
of Charlemagne ; we see the Crusades, in which
nearly twenty millions perish ; we see the fol-
lowers of Godfrey in Jerusalem — see the indis-
criminate massacre of men, women, and chil-
dren— see the mosques piled seven deep with
murdered Saracens — the Jews burnt in their
synagogues; we see Coeur de Lion slaughter in
cold blood thousands of captive Saracens ; we
see the Franks in Constantinople, plundering,
ravishing, murdering ; we see the Moors ex-
pelled from Spain ; we see the murder of the
Huguenots and Waldenses — the slaughter of
German peasants — the desolation of Ireland —
Holland covered with blood ; we witness Smith-
field and Bartholomew ; we see the Inquisition
with its countless instruments of fiendish cru-
422 Morality of the Bible.
elty ; we see the Auto-da-fe, where heretics, clad
in mockery, are led to torture and to death ; we
see men stretched upon the rack, disjointed, and
torn limb from limb ; we see them flayed alive
— their bleeding bodies seared with red-hot
irons ; we see them covered with pitch and oil
and set on fire ; we see them hurled headlong
from towers to the stony streets below; we see
them buried alive ; we see them hanged and
quartered ; we see their eyes bored out with
heated augers — their tongues torn out — their
bones broken with hammers — their bodies
pierced with a thousand needles ; we see aged
women tied to the heels of fiery steeds — see
their mangled and bleeding bodies dragged
with lightning speed over the frozen earth ; we
see new-born babes flung into the flames to per-
ish with their mothers, or with their mothers
sewed in sacks and sunk into the sea ; in short,
on every hand, as a result of this book's teach-
ings, we see hate, torture, death !
But, thanks to the brave Infidels who have
gone before, you, Bible moralists, can use these
instruments of cruelty to silence heretics to
Christianity no more.
' ' Where are the hands which cnce for this foul creed,
'Mid flame and torture, made an Atheist bleed ?
Gone — like the powers your fathers used so well
To send souls heavenward through the fl&mes of hell.
And you, poor palsied creatures! you, ere long.
With them thrice cursed shall swell Gehenna's throng.
Your God is dead ; your heaven a hope bewrayed ;
Your hell a by-word, and your creed a trade ;
Your vengeance — what ? A mere polluting touch —
A cripple striking with a brokjn crutch !"
Conclusion. 423
CHAPTEB XXXV.
CONCLUSION.
Twenty crimes and vices — lying, cheating,
stealing, murder, wars of conquest, human sacri-
fices, cannibalism, witchcraft, slavery, polygamy,
adultery, obscenity, intemperance, vagrancy ig-
norance, injustice to woman, unkindness to
children, cruelty to animals, tyranny, persecu-
tion— are, we have seen, sanctioned by the
Bible. Scattering this book broadcast over the
land, making it the chief text-book of the Sun-
day-school and, above all, placing it in our public
schools and compelling our youth to accept it
as infallible authority, is a monstrous wrong;
and you who advocate it are the enemies of vir-
tue and the promoters of vice. James Anthony
Froude says : " Considering all the heresies, the
ernormous crimes, the wickedness, the astound-
ing follies, which the Bible has been made to
justify, and which its indiscriminate reading has
suggested; considering that it has been, indeed,
the sword which our Lord said he was sending,
and that not the devil himself could have in-
vented an implement more potent to fill the
hated world with lies and blood and fury, I
424 Morality of the Bible.
think certainly that to send hawkers over the
world loaded with copies of this book, scatter-
ing it in all places, among all persons, . . .
is the most culpable folly of which it is possible
for man to be guilty."
There are within the lids of this Bible a hun-
dred chapters sanctioning the bloodiest deeds
in all the annals of crime ; and this is the
book you wish to place in the hands of our
sons ! There are within the lids of this
Bible a hundred chapters which no modest
woman can read without her cheek becoming
tinged with the blush of shame ; and this is the
book you wish to place in the hands of our
daughters ! If you delight to feast upon such
carrion you have the right to do so , but you
have no right to thrust it down the throats of
your neighbors. As a Liberal, I concede to the
Christian cuckoo the right to propagate her
species ; but I protest against her laying her
eggs in the secular nest and having them hatched
by the state.
I contend that the Bible does not present
an infallible moral standard, and I have given
many valid reasons why it does not. I expect
the defenders of this book to complete the task
that I have here essayed. They will claim that
the Bible is opposed to crime. They will, no
doubt, cite numerous passages in confirmation
of this claim. Let them do this. Then place
the results of our labors side by side. This will
show that the Bible abounds with teachings
Conclusion. 425
that conflict. This fact established, the dogma
of its divinity must fall. And this is what I am
endeavoring to do — to tear this dogma from the
human brain. Not until this is done can we
have a pure morality. So long as men's minds
are confused and corrupted by these conflicting
and demoralizing teachings, so long will im-
morality prevail. You cannot make men moral
while they accept as their moral guide a book
which sanctions every crime and presents as the
best models of human excellence the most no-
torious villains. You cannot make them moral
by teaching them that a lie is better for being
called inspired, that a vice becomes a virtue
with age, that a dead rogue should be canonized
and a live one killed.
Not until this dogma is destroyed can you
appreciate what is meritorious in the Bible.
There are in it some noble precepts. It con-
tains along with the false much that is true;
along with the bad much that is good ; but while
you are compelled to accept all — the true and
the false, the good and the bad, as alike infalli-
ble, as alike divine — it can be of no value to you.
You may contend that I mistake the meaning
of what I have quoted from this book. But the
language is too plain to be mistaken. Do not
tell me that it states one thing and means an-
other. This is, you affirm, the word of your
God. Is your God wanting in candor?
So far as the Bible is concerned, the criminal
has as much to support the justness of his
426 Morality of the Bible.
crime as the Christian has to sustain the truth-
fulness of his creed. The various doctrines of
the church are not upheld by stronger Scripture
proofs than have been cited in justification of
the crimes that I have named.
Bible apologists tell us that it is only in this
book that wrongdoers confess and record their
sins, and that this is evidence of its divinity.
Were this true we might say that the Bible is
the only book whose authors are so devoid of
shame as to parade their sins. But this claim
is not true. It was not the sinners who wrote
these accounts of their sins any more than it is
the criminals to-day who write and publish the
accounts of their crimes.
Bible lands, we are told, are more moral than
other lands. This is false. The morality of
Pagan China and Japan, without the Bible, is
not inferior to that of Christian Europe with it.
Modern Europe with its partial rejection of the
Bible is superior in morality to medieval Eu-
rope with its full acceptance of it. The morals
of the people have improved in about the same
ratio that their faith in the book has declined.
A further declension of faith will bring a further
improvement in morals. In Christian countries
those who have discarded its teachings are
morally superior to those who still accept them.
It is the ignorant who are the most devout be-
lievers in this book, and it is the ignorant who
are the most immoral. The intelligence and
morality to be found in Christian lands are not
Conclusion. 427
the results of Bible teachings, but exist in spite
of them.
That some great and good men have com-
mended the Bible as a moral guide is true.
These commendations are given wide publicity.
But the testimonials of these men are, for the
most part, not the result of careful reading and
study. They have been inspired by the teach-
ings of childhood, by the sentiment that prevails
around them, or by a perusal of only the choicest
portions of the book. These testimonials, too,
are mostly from men who, while expressing ad-
miration for many of its teachings, do not be-
lieve and do not profess to believe in its divinity.
Many of these testimonials are forgeries.
"If you discard the Bible, what," asks the
Christian, " will you give us as a moral guide ? "
Enter a public library blindfolded; take from
its shelves a volume at random, and you will
scarcely select a worse one. The book you select
may not pertain to morals. It may not even
contain the word " moral." But neither does
the Bible. Must we go to the ignorant past for
our morality? Does human experience count
for nothing? Have the most marvelous advances
been made in every other department of human
knowledge during the past two thousand years
and none in ethical science? Read Bentham,
Mill, and Spencer. Let your children study
Count Volney's "Law of Nature," and Miss
Wixon's " Right Living." These books are not
infallible and divine, they are fallible and hu-
428 Morality of the Bible.
man ; but they are immeasurably superior to any
books that supernaturalists can offer. Not in
Moses nor Jesus, not in the Decalogue nor Ser-
mon on the Mount, is there to be found a state-
ment of moral duties so just and so comprehen-
sive as the following from Volney :
" What do you conclude from all this ? I conclude
from it that all the social virtues are only the
habitude of actions useful to society and to the
individual who practices them ; that they all
refer to the physical object of man's preserva-
tion ; that nature having implanted in us the
want of that preservation, has made -a law to us
of all its consequences, and a crime of every-
thing that deviates from it ; that we carry in
us the seed of every virtue, and of every perfec-
tion ; that it only requires to be developed
that we are only happy inasmuch as we observe
the rules established by nature for the end of
our preservation; and that all wisdom, all per-
fection, all law, all virtue, all philosophy, consist
in the practice of these axioms founded on our
own organization : — Preserve thyself ; Instruct
thyself; Moderate thyself; live for thy fel-
low-men, that they may live for thee."
The Bible moralist would have us believe that
from this book all morality has been derived ;
that God is the author and the Bible the revela-
tion and sole repository of moral laws. But it is
not from Gods and Bibles that these laws have
come. In the words of Tyndall, " Not in the
way assumed by our dogmatic teachers has the
Conclusion. 429
morality of human nature been propped up.
The power that has molded us thus far has
worked with stern tools upon a rigid stuff. . .
That power did not work with delusions, nor
will it stay its hands when such are removed.
Facts, rather than dogmas, have been its minis-
ters— hunger, shame, pride, love, hate, terror,
awe — such were the forces, the interaction and
adjustment of which during the immeasurable
ages of his development wove the triplex web
of man's physical, intellectual, and moral na-
ture, and such are the forces that will be effect-
ual to the end."
Accepting the Bible — not for what it is claimed
to be, the word of God, but for what it is, the
work of man — I can excuse, in a degree, the
crude ideas of right and wrong and the laxity of
morals that prevailed among the people whose
history it purports to record. The age in which
they lived, the circumstances that surrounded
them, must palliate, to some extent, their deeds
and theories. But it is humiliating to think
that in these better times, illuminated by the
light of a glorious civilization, there are those
who spurn the robes of virtue that Reason in
the loom of grave Experience has woven, and
who from the dark and musty closets of the
past drag forth for use the soiled and blood-
stained garments that barbarians wore.
With this chapter our review of the Bible
ends. We have examined successively the au-
430 Morality of the Bible.
thenticity of its books, the credibility of its state-
ments, and the morality of its teachings. The
authenticity of the Bible must be abandoned.
It will be abandoned, and abandoned soon. Its
credibility, impaired by a knowledge of its lack
of authenticity and the exposure of its number-
less errors, will be contended for awhile longer.
But this, in turn, will go. When its credibility
has been destroyed, and it is acknowledged to
be mostly a volume of fables and legends, priest-
craft continuing to survive, the clergy, as a
dernier resort, will descant upon the divine les-
sons of morality taught by these fables and
legends. But the relentless iconoclasts of criti-
icism will break this image also, and the Bible
as a moral guide and religious authority will be
laid away forever.
APPENDIX.
APPENDIX.
Arguments Against tbe Divine Origin and in Support
of the tiuman Origin of ifte Bible.
A celebrated theologian has used with much
ingenuity and effect the watch as an argument
in support of the divine origin of the universe.
I have a watch. Like other watches it is not
infallible. But supposing that I should claim
for it infallibility and divinity ; that while other
watches are of human invention and workman-
ship, this particular make of watches is the work
of God. The claim would be deemed too absurd
for serious consideration. I would be regarded
as a lunatic or a jester. Now, it is no more ab-
surd to claim infallibility and divinity for a watch
than it is to claim infallibility and divinity for a
book. Yet millions of people of recognized sanity
and intelligence profess to believe, and many of
them do sincerely believe, that a book called the
Bible is divine. How do we account for this ?
It is simply the result of centuries of religious
education. I could have taken my children and
taught them that my watch is divine. Had I
kept them isolated as far as possible from other
people, had I commanded them to shun dis-
434 Appendix.
cussion, and forDidden them to reason about it,
as the clergy do in regard to the Bible, they
would probably believe it. I was taught that
the Bible is divine. I believed it. But in a
fortunate hour I listened to the voice of Reason;
I examined the claims of its advocates; I read
it; and the halo of holiness surrounding the old
book vanished.
As a supplement to my review of the Bible
I shall present some arguments, thirty-six in
number, against the divine origin and in sup-
port of the human origin of the Bible. The
brevity and incompleteness of many of them
will, I admit, justify the conclusion not proven.
I have space for little more than a mere state-
ment of them. The evidence supporting them
will be found in the preceding chapters of this
book.
In a discussion of this question the champion
of the Bible is placed at a tremendous disad-
vantage— is handicapped as it were — at the
very commencement by this fact : While both
the advocates and opponents of Bible divinity
admit that man exists and has written books, it
has not been proven that a God even exists,
much less that he has written or inspired a
book. But let us concede, for the sake of argu-
ment, that there is a God ; that he is all-power-
ful, all-wise, and all-just ; and that he can write
or inspire a book. Is the Bible the work of
such a Being? It is not. The following are
my arguments :
Appendix. 435
1. Its mechanical construction and appearance.
The Bible is printed with type made by man,
on paper made by man, and bound in a volume
by man. In its mechanical construction and
appearance it does not differ from other books.
2. The character of its contents. The con-
tents of this book consist of thoughts — human
thoughts — every thought bearing unmistakable
evidence of having emanated from the human
mind. There is not a thought expressed in the
Bible, the meaning of which can be compre-
hended, that is beyond the power of man to
conceive. If it contains thoughts, the meaning
of which cannot be comprehended, they are not
a revelation, and are self-evidently human.
3. The manner in which its contents were com-
municated to man. These thoughts are expressed
in human language. The Bible originally ap-
peared, it is claimed, in the Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek languages, two of them obscure lan-
guages of Western Asia. The president of the
United States does not issue an important proc-
lamation in the Cherokee or Tagalese language,
and the ruler of the universe would not have
issued a message intended for all mankind in
the most obscure languages of the world. Had
he given a message to man he would have pro-
vided a universal language for its transmission.
4. Lack of divine supervision in its translation
into other tongues. Failing to provide a universal
language for its transmission, God would at least
have supervised its translation into other Ian-
436 Appendix.
guages. Only in this way could its inerrancy
and divinity have been preserved. Yet no di-
vine supervision has been exercised over the
translators, the transcribers, and the printers of
this book. Divine supervision, it is admitted,
was confined to the original writers.
5. Not given to man until at a late period in his
existence. This is an argument advanced by
Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon rejected the
Bible. He said that if it had been given to
man at the creation he might have accepted it,
but that its late appearance proved to him that
it was of human origin.
6. Not given as a guide to all mankind, but only to
an insignificant portion of it. Not only has the
Bible been confined to a small period of man's
existence, it is nearly all addressed to one small
race of earth's inhabitants. While Christians
affirm that it is a universal message intended for
all, its doctrines and ceremonies pertain to the
Jews. This is wholly true of the Old Testa-
ment, and, with the exception of a few doubtful
passages, true of the Four Gospels, the chief
books of the New Testament. Now, is it rea-
sonable to suppose that this great and just All-
Father, as he is called, would for centuries take
into his special confidence and care a few of his
children and ignore and neglect the others?
7. It deals for the most part, not with the ivorks
of God, but with the tvorks of man. What man
does and knows is not a divine revelation.
Paine says : " Revelation, therefore, cannot be
Appendix. 437
applied to anything done upon earth, of which
man himself is the actor or witness ; and conse-
quently all the historical and anecdotal part of
the Bible, which is almost the whole of it, is
not within the meaning and compass of the
word revelation, and therefore is not the word
of God."
8. But one of many Bibles. There are many
Bibles. The world is divided into various re-
ligious systems. The adherents of each system
have their sacred book, or Bible. Brahmins
have the Yedas and Puranas, Buddhists the
Tripitaka, Zoroastrians the Zend Avesta, Con-
fucians the five King, Mohammedans the
Koran, and Christians the Holy Bible. The ad-
herents of each claim that their book is a rev-
elation from God — that the others are spurious.
Now, if the Christian Bible were a revelation —
if it were God's only revelation, as affirmed —
would he allow these spurious books to be im-
posed upon mankind and delude the greater
portion of his children?
9. Many versions of this Bible. Not only are
there many Bibles in the world, there are many
versions of the Christian Bible. The believers
in a divine revelation have not been agreed as
to what books belong to this revelation. The
ancient Jews, who are said to have sustained
more intimate relations with God than any
other race, were not agreed in regard to this.
The accepted Hebrew version contains 39 books
(22 as divided by the Jews) , the Samaritan ver-
438 Appendix.
sion contains but 6 books (some copies 5); while
the Septuagint version contains 50. The early
Christians were not agreed. The Syriac version
of the New Testament contains 22 books ; the
Italic 24 (some copies 25) ; the Egyptian 2(5 ;
the Vulgate 27. The Sinaitic and Alexandrian
MSS. each contains 29 books, but they are not
all the same. The Gothic version omitted four
books in the Old Testament. The Ethiopic
omitted books in both the Old and New Testa-
ments which are now accepted, and included
books in both which are now rejected. The
Bibles of the Roman Catholic, of the Greek
Catholic, and of the Protestant churches do not
contain the same books. This disagreement re-
garding the books of the Bible is proof of their
human origin.
10. Incompetency of those loho determined the
canon. If the Bible were the word of God it
would not have required the deliberations of a
church council to determine the fact. And yet
the Christian canon was determined in this
manner; and it took centuries of time and many
councils to make a collection of books that was
acceptable to the church. Not until the close
of the fourth century were all the books of the
Bible adopted.
It is commonly supposed that the members
of these councils were men of great learning and
still greater honesty. On the contrary, they were
mostly men of little learning and less honesty.
They were ignorant, fanatical, and immoral.
Appendix. 439
Their deliberations were characterized by trick-
ery, lying, mob violence, and even murder.
Many of them, so far from being able to read
and critically examine the books of the Bible,
could not read their own names. Even the
molders of their opinions concerning the canon
— Irenseus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,
Jerome, and Augustine — were they living now,
would be considered very ordinary clay. The
historical facts in regard to the formation of
the Bible, if generally known, would be suffi-
cient to dispel all illusions respecting its di-
vinity.
11. Boohs belonging to this so-called revelation
lost or destroyed. There were many other Jew-
ish and Christian writings for which divinity
was claimed and which Bible writers themselves
declare to be of as much importance and au-
thority as those which still exist. The transi-
tory and perishable nature of these books proves
their human origin, and shows that while those
that remain are more enduring they are not im-
mortal and imperishable, and hence not di-
vine.
12. Different versions of the same booh do not
agree. There are a hundred versions and trans-
lations of the books of the Bible. No two ver-
sions of any book agree. The translators and
copyists have altered nearly every paragraph.
The earlier versions alone contain more than
100,000 different readings. The original text no
longer exists and cannot be restored. Every
44° Appendix.
version, it is admitted, abounds with corrup-
tions. Now, to assert that a book is at the same
time divine and corrupt is a contradiction of
terms. God, it is affirmed, is all-wise, all-pow-
erful, and all- just. If he is all- wise he knew
when his work was being corrupted ; if he is
all-powerful he could have prevented it ; if he is
all- just he would have prevented it. This God,
it is declared, is everywhere and sees every-
thing. He watches the sparrows when they
fall, and numbers the hairs of our heads. He
knows the secrets of every heart. If he made a
revelation to his children, upon the acceptance
and observance of which depends their eternal
happiness, and then knowingly and wilfully
allowed this revelation to be perverted and mis-
understood, he is not a just God, but an unjust
devil.
13. The mutability of its contents. The altera-
tions made by transcribers and translators
demonstrate the mutability of its contents, and
this disproves its divine character. To admit
that man can alter the work of God is to admit
that human power transcends divine power. If
the thoughts composing the Bible were divine
man could not alter them.
14. The anonymous character of its books. If
the Bible is to be accepted even as a reliable hu-
man record its authors ought, at least, to be per-
sons»of acknowledged intelligence and veracity.
And yet almost nothing is known of its authors.
The authorship of fully fifty books of the Bible
Appendix. 441
is absolutely unknown. Its books are nearly all
either anonymous or self-evident forgeries. This
is true of the most important books. The Pen-
tateuch we know was not written by Moses, nor
the Four Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John. Aside from the anonymous character of
the writings of the Bible, with a few exceptions,
they evince neither a superior degree of intelli-
gence nor a high regard for the truth.
15. Its numerous contradictions. If the Bible
were divine there would be perfect harmony in
all its statements. One contradiction is fatal to
the claim of inerrancy and divinity. Now the
Bible contains not merely one, but hundreds of
contradictions. Nearly every book contains
statements that are contradicted by the writers
of other books. This is especially true of the
Four Gospels. The writers of these agree that
a being called Jesus Christ lived and died ; but
regarding nearly every event connected with his
life and death they disagree. Human discord,
and not divine harmony, dwells in its pages.
16. Its historical errors. If the Bible were di-
vine its history would be infallible. But it is
not. It presents as historical facts the most-
palpable fictions, and denies or misstates the
best authenticated truths of history. Referring
to Bible writers, the eminent Dutch divines,
Drs. Kuenen, Oort, and Hooykaas, in their
preface to " The Bible for Learners," say: " As
a rule, they concern themselves very little with
the question whether what they narrated really
442 Appendix.
happened so or not." Its history is fallible and
human.
17. Its scientific errors. God, the alleged au-
thor of this book, it is claimed, created the uni-
verse. He ought, then, to be familiar with his
own works. The writers of the Bible, on the
contrary, display a lamentable ignorance of
the universe and its phenomena. The Rev.
Dr. Lindsay Alexander, orthodox Calvinist,
in his " Biblical Theology," referring to these
writers, says: " "We find in their writings
statements which no ingenuity can reconcile
with what modern research has shown to be
scientific truth." The demonstrated truths of
modern science were unknown to them. They
give us the crude ideas of primitive man and not
the infallible knowledge of an omniscient God.
18. Its alleged miracles. The Bible is filled
with marvelous stories. The sun and moon
stand still ; the globe is submerged with water
to the depth of several miles ; rods are trans-
formed into serpents, dust into lice, and water
into blood and wine ; aniruals hold converse
with man in his own language; men pass
through fiery furnaces unharmed ; a child is
born without a natural father ; the dead arise
from the grave and walk the earth again. These
marvelous stories — these miracles — are adduced
to prove the divine origin of the Bible. They
prove its human origin. If these miracles prove
the divinity of the Bible, then nearly all the
books of old are divine, for they abound with
Appendix. 443
these same miracles. If these stories be true,
if these miracles occurred, the laws of nature
were arrested and suspended. The laws of na-
ture are immutable. If the laws of nature are
immutable they cannot be suspended. The laws
of nature-cannot be suspended ; they never have
been suspended ; these stories are false ; and
being false, the Bible is not divine.
19. Its immoral teachings. If the Bible were of
divine origin its moral teachings would be di-
vine. It would be what its adherents affirm it
to be, an infallible moral guide. But its moral
teachings are not divine ; it is not an infallible
moral guide. It contains, like other Bibles,
some moral precepts ; but it also sanctions
nearly every crime and vice. War and murder,
bigotry and persecution, tyranny and slavery,
demonism and witchcraft, adultery and prosti-
tution, drunkenness and vagrancy, robbery and
cheating, falsehood and deception, are all au-
thorized and commended by this book. It can-
not, therefore, be divine.
20. Its inferior literary character. If the Bible
were the word of God, as a literary composition
it would be above criticism. It would be as far
superior to all other books as God is superior to
man. Its rhetoric would transcend in beauty
the glorious coloring of a Titian; Its logic
would be faultless. The Bible is not such a
book. It contains some admirable pieces and
these owe much of their literary merit to the
translators, appearing as our version did in the
444 Appendix.
golden age of English literature. As a whole it
is far inferior to the literature of ancient Greece
and Borne ; inferior to the literature of modern
Italy, of France, of Germany, and of England.
If the Bible be the word of God it is a long way
from God up to Shakspeare.
21. Its writers do not claim to be inspired. Had
the writers of the Bible been inspired they
would have known it and would have proclaimed
it. Had they claimed to be inspired it would
not prove the Bible to be divine, for like Mo-
hammed, they might have been deluded, or,
like a more recent finder of a holy book, impos-
tors. But they do not even claim that their
books are divine revelations. Some of thes*e
books contain what purport to be divine revela-
tions, but the books themselves do not pretend
to be divine. The only exception is the book
called Revelation, admittedly the most doubtful
book of the Bible.
" All scripture is given by inspiration."
Waiving the questions of authenticity and cor-
rect translation, who wrote this? Paul. What
was the scripture when he wrote? The Old
Testament, the Old Testament alone. The
writers of the Old Testament do not claim to be
divinely inspired. This is a claim made by the
later Jews and by the early Christians. Paul
and the other writers of the New Testament do
not claim that their writings are divine. This,
too, is a claim made by others long after they
were written.
Appendix. 445
The fact that the writers of the Bible do not
believe and do not assert that their books are of
divine origin, that this claim was first made
many years after they were composed, by those
who knew nothing of their origin, is of itself, in
the absence of all other evidence, sufficient to
demonstrate their human origin.
22. God has never declared it to be his word.
The Bible does not, as we have seen, purport to
be the word of God. Nowhere, neither in the
book nor outside of it, has he declared it to be
his revealed will. It contains various messages,
chiefly of local concern, which he is said to
have delivered to man ; but the book, as such,
is not ascribed to him nor claimed by him.
23. Wliatever its origin it cannot be a divine rev-
elation to us. Even supposing that the writers
of the Bible had claimed to be inspired and
that these books really were a divine revelation
to them, they would not, as Paine justly argues,
be a divine revelation to us. The only evidence
we would have of their divinity would be the
claim of the writer — a claim that any writer
might make — a claim that even an honest writer
might make were he, like many religious writers,
the victim of a delusion.
24. A written revelation unnecessary. To af-
firm the necessity of a written revelation from
God to man, as Christians do, is to deny his
divine attributes and ascribe to him the limita-
tions of man. If God be omnipotent and om-
nipresent a written revelation is unnecessary.
446 Appendix.
To impute to him an unnecessary act is to im-
pute to him an imperfection, and to impute to
him an imperfection is to impugn his divinity.
We do not write a communication to one who is
present. Think of an infinite, all-powerful, and
ever-present God communing with his living
children through an obscure and corrupted
message said to have been delivered to a tribe
of barbarians three thousand years ago !
25. Its want of universal acceptance. A divine
revelation intended for all mankind can be har-
monized only with a universal acceptance o!
this revelation. God, it is affirmed, has made a
revelation to the world. Those who receive
and accept this revelation are saved; those who
fail to receive and accept it are lost. This God,
it is claimed, is all-powerful and all-just. If he
is all-powerful he can give his children a rev-
elation. If he is all-just he will give this
revelation to all. He will not give it to a
part of them and allow them to be saved
and withhold it from the others and suffer
them to be lost. Your house is on fire. Tour
children are asleep in their rooms. What is
your duty? To arouse them and rescue them
— to awaken all of them and save all of them.
If you awaken and save only a part of them
when it is in your power to save them all you are
a fiend. If you stand outside and blow a trumpet
and say, " I have warned them, I have done my
duty," and they perish, you are still a fiend. If
God does not give his revelation to all ; if he
Appendix. 447
does not disclose its divinity to all ; if he does
not make it comprehensible and acceptable to
all ; in short, if he does not save all, he is the
prince of fiends.
If all the world's inhabitants but one accepted
the Bible and there was one who could not hon-
estly accept it, its rejection by one human being
would prove that it is not from an all-powerful
and an all-just God ; for an all-powerful God
who failed to reach and convince even one of
his children would not be an all-just God. Has
the Bible been given to all the world ? Do all
accept it? Three-fourths of the human race re-
ject it ; millions have never heard of it.
26. Non-agreement of those who profess to ac-
cept it. If the Bible were the work of God there
would be no disagreement in regard to its teach-
ings. Its every word would be as clear as the
light of day. Yet those who profess to accept
it as divine are not agreed as to what it means.
In the Christian world are a hundred sects, each
with a different interpretation of its various
teachings. Take the rite of baptism. Baptism
is enjoined by the Bible. But what is baptism?
The three leading Protestant denominations of
this country are the Baptist, the Presbyterian,
and the Methodist. I ask the Baptist what
constitutes baptism, and he tells me immersion ;
I ask the Presbyterian, and he tells me sprink-
ling ; I ask the Methodist which is proper, and
he tells me to take my choice. Sectarianism is
conclusive proof that the Bible is human.
448 Appendix.
27 Inability of those who affirm both a human and
a divine element in it to distinguish the one from
the other. Confronted by its many glaring er-
rors and abominable teachings, some contend
that a part of it is the work of man and a part
the work of God. And yet they are unable to
separate the one from the other. If a hundred
attempts were made by them to eliminate the
human from the divine no two results would be
the same. Their inability to distinguish this sup-
posed divine element from the human is proof
that both have the same origin — that both are
human.
28. The character of its reputed divine author.
The Bible is an atrocious libel on God. It tra-
duces his character, and denies his divinity. The
God of the Bible is not this all-powerful, all-
wise, and all-just Ruler of the universe, but a
creature of the human imagination, limited in
power and knowledge, and infinite only in vanity
and cruelty.
29. The belief of primitive Christians in its di-
vinity not an immediate conviction but a growth.
Had the books of the Bible been divinely in-
spired their divinity would have been recog-
nized at once. When they originally appeared
they were believed and known to be the works
of man and accepted as such.
Referring to the Old Testament, Dr. Davidson
says : "The degree of authority attaching to the
Biblical books grew from less to greater, till it
culminated in a divine character, a sacredness
Appendix. 449
rising even to infallibility" (The Canon of the
Bible, p. 274).
Of the New Testament Dr. Westcott says :
" It cannot, however, be denied that the idea of
the inspiration of the New Testament, in the
sense in which it is maintained now, was the
growth of time" (Oa the Canon of the New
Testament, p. 55).
The admitted fact that these books were
originally presented and received as human pro-
ductions, and that the idea of inspiration and
divinity was gradually and slowly developed by
the priesthood, is conclusive proof that they
are of human and not of divine origin.
30. Its acceptance by modern Christians the re-
sult of religious teaching. In India the people
believe that the Vedas and other sacred books
or Bibles are divine. Why do they believe it?
Because for a hundred generations they have
been taught it by their priests. The Turks be-
lieve that the Koran came from God. They
believe it because for twelve centuries this has
been their religious teaching. For nearly two
thousand yea'-s Christian priests have taught
that the Holy Bible is the word of God. As a
result of this the masses of Europe and Amer-
ica believe it to be divine. Each generation,
thoroughly impregnated with superstition,trans-
mitted the disease to the succeeding one and
made it easy for the clergy to impose their
teachings on the people and perpetuate their
rule. The belief of Christians in the divinity
450 Appendix.
of the Bible, like the belief of Hindoos in the
divinity of the Vedas, and of Mohammedans
in the divinity of the Koran, is the result of re-
ligious teaching.
The ease with which a belief in the divine
character of a book obtains, even in an enlight-
ened age, is illustrated by the inspired (?) books
that have appeared in this country from time
to time, and for several of which numerous ad-
herents have been secured. About seventy-five
years ago a curious volume, called the Book of
Mormon, made its appearance. A few im-
postors and deluded men proclaimed its di-
vinity. A priesthood was established ; Mormon
education and Mormon proselytism began their
work, and already nearly a million converts
have been made to the divinity of this book.
Dr. Isaac Watts says : " The greatest part of
the Christian world can hardly give any reason
why they believe the Bible to be the Word of
God, but because they have always believed it,
and they were taught so from their infancy."
Really the entire Christian world — pope, bishop,
priest, and layman — the learned and the un-
learned— can give no other valid reason.
Profoundly true are these words of the his-
torian Lecky : " The overwhelming majority of
the human race necessarily accept their opin-
ions from authority. Whether they do so
avowedly, like the Catholics, or unconsciously,
like most Protestants, is immaterial. They have
Appendix. 451
neither time nor opportunity to examine for
themselves. They are taught certain doctrines
on disputed questions as if they were unques-
tionable truths, when they are incapable of
judging, and every influence is employed to
deepen the impression. This is the origin of
their belief. Not until long years of mental
conflict have passed can they obtain the inesti-
mable boon of an assured and untrammeled
mind. The fable of the ancient is still true.
The woman even now sits at the portal of life,
presenting a cup to all who enter in which
diffuses through every vein a poison that will
cling to them for ever. The judgment may
pierce the clouds of prejudice ; in the moments
of her strength she may even rejoice and tri-
umph in her liberty ; yet the conceptions of
childhood will long remain latent in the mind
to reappear in every hour of weakness, when the
tension of the reason is relaxed, and when the
power of old associations is supreme " (His-
tory of Rationalism, Vol. II., pp. 95, 96).
Schopenhauer says : " There is in childhood
a period measured by six, or at most by ten
years, when any well inculcated dogma, no
matter how extravagantly absurd, is sure to re-
tain its hold for life." Considering the im-
pressionable character of the immature mind,
and how nearly impossible it is to eradicate the
impressions of childhood, the wonder is not that
so many believe in the divinity of the Bible,
452 ■ Appendix.
unreasonable as the belief is, but rather that so
many disbelieve it.
31. An article of merchandise. Bibles are
manufactured and sold just as other books are
manufactured and sold. Some are printed on
poor paper, cheaply bound, and sold at a low
price ; while others are printed on the best
of paper, richly bound, and sold at a high
price. But all are sold at a profit. The pub-
lisher and the book seller, or Bible agent,
derive pecuniary gain from their publication
and sale. It may hi urged that the Bible can
be obtained for the asking, that millions of
copies are gratuitously distributed. But this is
done in the interest of Christian propagandism.
•Nearly all religious, political, and social organi-
zations, to promote their work, make a free dis-
tribution of their literature.
The printing and selling of Bibles is as much
a part of the publishing business as the print-
ing and selling of novels. One of the leading
publishing houses of this country is that of
the American Bible Society. Wealthy and de-
luded Christians have been successfully impor-
tuned to contribute millions to this Society.
Directly or indirectly the clergy reap the har-
vest, leaving the gleanings to the lay employees,
many of whom labor at starvation wages. In
Great Britain the crown has claimed the sole
and perpetual right to print the Bible (A. V.).
For monetary or other considerations her kings
Appendix. 453
have delegated this right to publishers who
have amassed fortunes from its sale. Twenty
years ago Bible publishing was characterized as
the worst monopoly in England. If the Bible
were divine God would not allow it to be used
as merchandise. It would be as free as light
and air.
32. A pillar of priestcraft. Not only is the
Bible printed and sold like other books, but its
so-called divine teachings themselves are used
as merchandise. There are in Christendom half
a million priests and preachers. These priests
and preachers are supported by the people.
Even the humble laborer and the poor servant
girl are obliged to contribute a portion of their
hard earnings for this purpose. In this country
alone two thousand million dollars are invested
for their benefit ; while two hundred million
dollars are annually expended for their support.
For what are these men employed? To inter-
pret God's revelation to mankind, we are told.
An all-powerful God needing an interpreter!
According to the clergy, God though omnipres-
ent has had to send a communication to his
children, and though omnipotent he cannot
make them understand it. Those ignorant of
other tongues and unable to make known their
wants require interpreters. The various Indian
tribes employ them. For the sake of gain these
men degrade their God to the level of an Ameri-
can savage, representing him as incapable of
454 Appendix.
expressing his thoughts to man, and represent
ing themselves as the possessors of both human
and divine wisdom and authorized to speak for
him.
These Bibles are simply the agents employed
by priests to establish and perpetuate their
power. They claim to be God's vicegerents on
earth. As their credentials they present these old
religious and mythological books. These books
abound with the marvelous and mysterious — the
impossible and unreasonable — and are easily
imposed upon the credulous. If the contents of
a book be intelligible and reasonable you can
not convince these people that it is other than
natural and human ; but if its contents be unin-
telligible and unreasonable it is easy to convince
them that it is supernatural and divine. Smith's
Bible Dictionary says : " The language of the
Apostles is intentionally obscure." Of course ;
if it were not obscure there would be no need of
priests to interpret it, and what is Scripture for
if not to give employment to the priests?
We are triumphantly told that the Bible has
withstood the assaults of critics for two thou-
sand years. But as much can be said of other
sacred books. Any business will thrive as long
as it is profitable. Bibles will be printed as
long as there is a demand for them; and there will
be a demand for them as long as priests do a
lucrative business with them. Considering their
abilities the venders of the Gospel are among the
Appendix. 455
best paid men in the world to-day. The wealth
of men and the smiles of women are bestowed
upon them more lavishly than upon any other
class. There are thousands in the ministry en-
joying comfortable and even luxurious livings
who would eke out a miserable subsistence in
any other vocation.
33. Its advocates demand its acceptance by faith
rather than by reason. In the Gospels and in
the Pauline Epistles, the principal books of the
New Testament, Christ, the reputed founder,
and Paul, the real founder of the Christian re-
ligion, both place religious faith, i. e., blind
credulity, above reason. This evinces a lack of
divine strength and is a confession of human
weakness.
Modern advocates of the Bible in presenting
the dogma of divine inspiration ask us to dis-
card reason and accept it by faith. In the
affected opinion of these men, to examine this
question is dangerous, to criticise the Bible is
impious, and to deny or even doubt its divinity
is a crime. What is this but a tacit acknowledg-
ment that the faith they wish us to exercise is
wanting in themselves ? This condemnation of
reason and commendation of credulity is an in-
sult to human intelligence. A dogma which
reason is obliged to reject, and which faith alone
can accept, is self-evidently false ; and its r ten-
tion is not for the purpose of supporting a di-
456 Appendix.
vine truth, but for the purpose of supporting a
human lie.
34. The refusal of its advocates to correct its
acknowledged errors. That the clergy are con-
trolled by mercenary motives rather than a love
of truth is attested by the fact that they con-
tinue to teach the admitted errors of the Bible.
Our Authorized version, it is conceded by Chris-
tian scholars, contains hundreds of errors. That
the Revisers corrected many of these errors is
admitted. Yet the clergy cling to these errors
and refuse to accept a corrected text. The
principal reasons assigned for retaining the Old
version instead of adopting the New are these:
1. The English of three hundred years ago pos-
sesses a certain charm which distinguishes the
Bible from more modern works and secures for
it a greater reverence. 2. Its division into chap-
ters and verses renders it more convenient. 3.
The adoption of the New would expose the er-
rors of the Old, suggest the possible fallibility
of the New, and sow the seeds of doubt. Thus
expediency prompts them to teach the acknowl-
edged errors of man in preference to what they
claim to be the truths of God. This proves the
human character of the Bible and the insin-
cerity of its professed exponents.
35. Its authority maintained by fraud and force.
For sixteen hundred years — from the time that
Constantine, to gain a political advantage over
his rivals, became a convert to the Christian
faith — corruption and coercion have been the pre-
Appendix. 457
dominant agents in maintaining its supremacy.
Fagot, and sword, and gun, and gibbet, and rack
and thumbscrew, and every artifice that cunning
and falsehood could devise, have been used to
uphold the dogma of this book's divinity. To-
day, in nearly every nation of Europe, the pow-
ers of the state are employed to compel allegi-
ance to it. And in this free Republic, every-
where, with bribe and threat, the authorities
are invoked to force its bloody and filthy pages
into the hands of innocent school girls to pollute
with superstition, lust, and cruelty their young
and tender minds. These deeds of violence,
these pious frauds, these appeals to the civil
powers, all prove it to be the work of man and
not the word of God.
36. The intelligence of the world for the most
part rejects it. If the Bible were divine the wise
would be the best qualified to realize and ap-
preciate the fact ; for while all may err the
judgment of the intelligent is better than the
judgment of the ignorant. In Christendom the
ignorant nearly all believe the Bible to be the
infallible word of God, every verse of which is
to be accepted literally. A more intelligent
class reject the objectionable portions of it, or
give to them a more rational and humane inter-
pretation. Those of the highest intelligence —
the great leaders of the world in national affairs,
in the domain of literature, in science and phi-
losophy, and in Biblical and religious criticism
— the Washingtons and Lincolns, the Franklins
458 Appendix.
and Jeffersons, the Fredericks and Napoleons,
the Gambettas and Garibaldis ; the Shakspeares
and Byrons, the Goethes and Schillers, the Car-
lyles and Emersons, the Eliots and DeStaels ;
the Humboldts and Darwins, the Huxleys and
Haeckels, the Drapers and Tyndalls, the
Comtes and Spencers ; the Humes and Gib-
bons, the Voltaires and Renans, the Bauers and
Strausses, the Paines and Ingersolls — all these
reject its divinity. A Gladstone is an anomaly.
Dr. Watson of Scotland gives frank expres-
sion to a fact of which his fellow clergymen are
fully cognizant, but which they are loth to ad-
mit. He says : " The great, and the wise, and
the mighty, are not with us. These men, the
master minds, the imperial leaders among men
are outside our most Christian church."
The ignorant suppose that the intelligent ac-
cept the Bible ; because the intelligent, depend-
ent in a large degree upon the ignorant, and
knowing that of all passions religious prejudice
and hatred are the worst, do not care to arouse
their antagonism by an unnecessary avowal of
their disbelief. This is especially true of men
in public life. But these men think ; and to
their intellectual friends they talk.
In his " History of the Bible," Bronson 0.
Keeler says : " The only men distinguished for
their learning who now believe it to be the in-
spired word of God, are the men who are, either
directly or indirectly, making their living out of
it." Do these learned divines themselves be-
Appendix. 459
lieve it? Nearly every intelligent clergyman
entertains and confidentially expresses opinions
regarding the Bible which he dare not proclaim
from the pulpit. But master and slave are
alike growing weary — the master of his du-
plicity, the slave of his burden. Emancipation
for both is approaching. To-day the clergy
smile when they meet ; some day they will
laugh outright, this stupendous farce will be
ended, and man will be free.
INDEX.
458 Appendix.
and Jeffersons, the Fredericks and Napoleons,
the Gambettas and Garibaldis ; the Shakspeares
and Byrons, the Goethes and Schillers, the Car-
lyles and Emersons, the Eliots and DeStaels ;
the Humboldts and Darwins, the Huxleys and
Haeckels, the Drapers and Tyndalls, the
Comtes and Spencers ; the Humes and Gib-
bons, the Voltaires and Renans, the Bauers and
Strausses, the Paines and Ingersolls — all these
reject its divinity. A Gladstone is an anomaly.
Dr. Watson of Scotland gives frank expres-
sion to a fact of which his fellow clergymen are
fully cognizant, but which they are loth to ad-
mit. He says : " The great, and the wise, and
the mighty, are not with us. These men, the
master minds, the imperial leaders among men
are outside our most Christian church."
The ignorant suppose that the intelligent ac-
cept the Bible ; because the intelligent, depend-
ent in a large degree upon the ignorant, and
knowing that of all passions religious prejudice
and hatred are the worst, do not care to arouse
their antagonism by an unnecessary avowal of
their disbelief. This is especially true of men
in public life. But these men think ; and to
their intellectual friends they talk.
In his " History of the Bible," Bronson 0.
Keeler says : " The only men distinguished for
their learning who now believe it to be the in-
spired word of God, are the men who are, either
directly or indirectly, making their living out of
it." Do these learned divines themselves be-
Appendix. 459
Here it? Nearly every intelligent clergyman
entertains and confidentially expresses opinions
regarding the Bible which he dare not proclaim
from the pulpit. But master and slave are
alike growing weary — the master of his du-
plicity, the slave of his burden. Emancipation
for both is approaching. To-day the clergy
smile when they meet ; some day they will
laugh outright, this stupendous farce will be
ended, and man will be free.
INDEX.
INDEX.
AARON, rod of, 309; other tricks, 310.
ABBOTT, Dr, Lyman, on Isaiah and Cyrus, 85; on Davidic
authorship of Psalms, 96.
ABIATHAR and Abimelech, their relations, 199.
ABIJAH and Jeroboam, 204.
ABIMELECH, his taking of Sarah, 193; his relation to
Abiathar, 199.
ABOLITION, see SLAVERY.
ABRAHAM, a textual change relating to, 1G7; his gift
of Sarah to Pharaoh and Abimelech, 193; when did he
go to Canaan? 194; and Hagar, 194; character of, 334;
deception of Pharaoh and Abimelech by, 341; or-
dered to sacrifice his son, 3G1; a polygamist, 383.
ACOUSTICS, Moses and Joshua speaking to all Israel,
288.
ACTS of the apostles, why written, 27; book of examined,
140-144; borrowed from Josephus, 142; 160.
ADAM, age of, 284.
ADAMJITIC monogenism, Huxley on, 283.
ADULTERY, sanctioned by the Bible, 388-391; forgiven
by Christ, 389.
AGAG, Saul's defeat of, 62.
"AGE OF REASON," 246.
AHAZ, return of shadow on dial of, 272.
AHAZIAH, time of his reign, 207.
ALEXANDRIAN MS., description of, 42-46.
ALFORD, Dean, on a "Substratum of apostolic teaching,"
130.
ALFRIC, accepted epistle to Laodiceans, 35.
ALOGI, the, on Revelation, 150.
ALTARS, removed by Hezekia'h, 64.
AMOS, 89-91.
ANICETUS, against the Passover, 133.
ANIMALS, cruelty to, 411-414; see ZOOLOGY.
ANONYMOUS BOOKS, number of, 160.
ANTHROPOMORPHISM OF THE BIBLE GOD, 321ff.
ANTIOCH, disciples first called Christians at, 247.
APOCALYPSE, the, 149ff; see REVELATION.
APOCHRYPHAL BOOKS, 15-20; how known, 163.
463
464
Index.
APOSTLES, the three greatest knew nothing of the gos-
pels, 110; memoirs of, ll(i; names of; provided with
staves? 241, 242.
APOSTOLIC FATHERS, gospels unknown to, 110-113.
APPELLES, gospel of, 127.
ARARAT, landing of the ark on, 285.
ARBAH, Jacob comes to, 59.
ARITHMETIC, Trinitarian, 289; genealogic, 290.
ARCTURUS, 99.
ARK, animals taken into by Noah. 191, 192; landing of,
285.
ARNOLD, Dr., on late date of Daniel, 103.
A.RPHAXAD, mixed pedigree of, 192, 193.
ASA, his relation to Maachah, 205.
ASAPH, psalms ascribed to, 96.
ASH-TREE, see BOTANY.
ASIA, source of religions, 5.
ASTRAL WORSHIP, practiced bv the Jews, 65.
ASTRONOMY OF THE BIBLE, 271ff.
ATHANASIUS. Esther rejected by, 35.
AUGUSTUS CAESAR, taxing by, not a fact. 267.
AUGUSTINE, canon" of, 29, 30, 32; his fitness, 30.
AUTHORIZED VERSION, adopted by "Westminster as-
sembly, 33.
AUTHORS OF BOOKS OF THE BIBLE, 46-48.
BAASHA, time of his death, 206.
BABEL, absurd story of, 284; contradicted, 285; 289.
BABYLON, Isaiah's false prophecy concerning, 295.
BALAAM AND HIS ASS, 311.
BANDITS, pious custom of, 350.
BARACHIAS, 122.
BARING-GOULD, Rev. S., affirms Marcion as the source
of Luke, 128.
BARNABAS, 36: epistle of, 111; Hebrews so called, 157.
BARTHOLOMEW, gospel of, 127.
BARTON, Clara, 331.
BARUCH, book of canonical, 30.
BARUCH, father of Zacharias, 122.
BASHAN, Og, king of, 59.
BASILIDES, gospel of, 127; 148; epistles rejected by, 157.
BATH-SHEBA, child of, smitten by the Lord, 411.
BATTLE, Israelite loss in. 265.
BAUR, F. C, gospels pronounced spurious by, 139. 153,
154; I. Peter believed to be a Pauline document by,
146; against authenticity of pastoral epistles, 157.
BEL AND THE DRAGON, 104.
Index. 465
BELFAST, biblical wine affirmed to be fermented by Pres.
Gen. assembly, 'held at, 399.
BELSHAZZAR, not king of Babylon, 103; feast of, 266;
not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, 267.
BENDER, Kate, 355, 356.
BENJAMIN, children of, ordered to kidnap wives, 406.
BENTHAM, Jeremy, on Priestley's phrase, 330.
BERGH, Henry, 414.
BESANT, Mrs. A., on apostolic authorship of the gospels,
130, 137.
BETHANY, John's mistake concerning, 132, 279.
BETHLEHEM, when so called, 59.
BETHSAIDA, birthplace of John, 132; not of Galilee, 279.
BEZA, Revelation rejected by, 36; on Revelation, 151;
Castalio on his translation of the Bible, 171.
BHAGAVATA, 6.
BIBLE, the Christian, 10; subdivisions of, 12, 13; canonical
and apocryphal books of, 15-20; different versions of,
39-44; the Hebrew Samaritan, 39; Septuagiut, 40;
Peshito, Egyptian, 40; Etliiopic, Gothic, Italic, Vulgate.
41; Luther's, 42; Wicliffe's, Tyndale's, King James's,
,. Revised, 43; Douay, 44; authorship and dates, 45-49;
authorship of fifty books of unknown, 48; fragmentary
character of some books of, 106; and science, 271-292;
immoral teachings of, 336-338; arguments against tje
divine origin and in support of the human origin of,
433-459; inferior literary character of, 443; rejected
by the intelligent, 457; canon of: see CANON.
BIBLES, Luther's 42, Wicliffe's, Tyndale's, King James's
Revised Version, 43; Douay, 44.
BIBLES, other than Christian, 5-10, 437.
BIBLE WRITERS, unconscious of sin in lying, 341.
BIBLE DICTIONARY, (Smith's), Judges, Ruth, Samuel
and kings asserted by, to have originally formed one
book, 79; 81; on Davidic authorship of Psalms, 95;
concession of as to Matthew, 124; on birthplace of
Luke, 126; on inharmony of John and the synoptics,
135; on I. Peter, 146; passages in I. John rejected by,
148; on Revelation, 149; on biblical chestnut- tree, 280.
BIRDS' NESTS, permission to rob, 414.
BIRKS, affirms the divine spirit behind human authors of
the Bible, 11.
BLACKSTONE, on witchcraft. 371.
BLAYNEY, Dr., his arrangement of Jeremiah, 86.
BLIND MEN, one or more? 242.
BOOK OF THE LAW, Hilkiah's discovery of, 51.
BOOKS, sacred lost or burnt by the Jews, 22, 23.
BOOKS, sacred, other than Christian, 437.
466
Index.
BOTANY, OF THE BIBLE. 279-281.
BRADLAUGH, C, on slavery in England, 377.
BRAHMA. G.
BREACH OP PROMISE, 340.
BRIGGS, Dr. C. A., on composition of Deuteronomy, 52;
against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, 53, 54;
on characters of Pentateuchal documents, 70; verdict of
the intellectual world pronounced by, 74; on biblical
liars, 341.
BUCKLE, H. T., clergy asserted to be the enamies of
learning by, 403.
BUDDHIST, kindness to animals of, 414.
BUNYAN. J., biblical inspiration asserted by, 163.
BURNETT, on light and weak eyes, 344.
BURR, W. H., epistles pronounced spurious by, 153.
BYRON, quotation from, 413.
OiESAR, Augustus, taxing by not a fact, 267.
CAIN, story of, 189.
CA.IETAN, authenticity of James denied by, 145.
CALF, the golden, 287.
CALHOUN. Rev. S. H.. on biblical wine, 398.
CALVIN, John, books doubted by, 36; Jude doubted by,
145; on Revelation. 151.
CAMEL, see ZOOLOGY.
CAMPBELL. Rev. Dr., on lost books, 23.
CAMPBELL, Rev. A., on slavery. 377.
CANAAN, conquest of, 58; no Hebrews in, 263.
CANAANITBS IN PALESTINE, 62.
CANNIBALISM, 367; among primitive Christians, 369;
in Russia, 370.
CANON, the Jewish-Christian, 21-25; founding of, by
Irenreus, 25; completion of, 29; Dr. McCHntock on,
31; fixed by modern councils, 32; the Roman Catholic,
32, the Greek. 33: Authorized Version, 33; ancient
Christian scholars on. 33-35; Protestant scholars on,
35-37; the Muratori, .°.4; hooks doubted by Origen, 34;
Ensebius's list of acknowledged and disputed books,
35; ten omitted by Chrysostoin. 35; books doubted by,
Calvin, Erasmus, Zwingle, Beza, Lardner, Evanson,
• Schleiermacher, Scaliger, Davidson, Eichorn, Whiston,
36; Luther's list, 37, 38.
CANTICLES. 100. 101.
CAPTIVITY, number of Jews who came out of, 231ff.
CARPENTER. Jesus so called, 242.
CARPOCRATIANS, Jude written to combat heresies of,
145; love feasts of, 390.
CARTHAGE, council of, 30, 31.
Index. 467
CASTALIO, his translation, Beza on, 171.
CAVE, on early cannibalism, 369; on adulteries of primitive
Christians, 390.
CETHUBIM, 10.
CHADWICK, Rev. J. W., on Pauline epistles, 158.
CHALDEANS, first heard of, 99.
CHAMBERS'S ENCYCLOPEDIA, on Origen's canon, 34;
on the Chaldeans, 99; on genuineness of the gospels,
126; on 2d Peter, 146; on authorship of I. John, 147;
on Tyre, 296.
CHANGES, textual, 167.
CHANNING, W. E., on N. T., polygamy, 384.
CHEATING, 345ff; of the Egyptians by the Israelites, 347.
CHEEVER, Dr. Geo. B., biblical inerrancy asserted by,
163; on the harmony of science and Bible, 271.
CHEMISTRY OF THE BIBLE, 286.
CHESTNUT-TREE, see BOTANY.
CHEYNE, T. K., on composite character of Isaiah; de-
clares 9th chapter an interpolation, 85; prophecy pro-
nounced a forgery by, 301.
CHILDBIRTH, pains of, attributed to a curse, 286.
CHILDREN, alleged slaughter of by Herod, 268.
CHILDREN, uukindness to, 409-411.
CHINA, sacred books of, 7.
CHRIST, his mention of Moses immaterial, 54; his men-
tion of Jonah, 89; second coming of, a prediction not
fulfilled, 303; taught in parables to mislead, 342; adul-
terous women in the genealogy of, 390.
CHRISTIAN FATHERS, gospels unknown to, 113-liy.
CHRISTIAN REGISTER, two-wine theory rejected by,
399.
CHRISTIANS, disciples first so called, 247.
CHRISTIANS, primitive, dissensions among, 144; given to
lying, 342, 343; guilty of cannibalism, 361, 369; adul-
teries of, 390; used intoxicating wine at Lord's Sup-
per, 399.
CHRONICLES, books of examined, 105; fragmentary
character of, 106.
CHRYSOSTOM, ST. says that the Jews lost or burnt
sacred books, 22, 23, 166; ten books omitted from
canon of, 35; on authors of the Gospels, 119; on place
of writing of Matthew, 124; Acts declared unknown
by, 144.
CHURCH, the Catholic, 25; Petrine, 27.
CHURCHES, Revelation rejected by the seven of Asia,
150.
CIRCUMCISION, performed by Paul, 257.
CLARKSON, his abolition bill. 377.
468
Index.
CLEMENT, epistle of, 36.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, successor of Irengeus,
20; apocryphal books cited by, 34; 119.
CLEMENT OF ROME, epistles of, 110, 113, 119; Hebrews
ascribed to, 157.
CLERICAL ERRORS, 165.
CLERMONT CODEX, on Hebrews, 157.
CODES OF THE PENTATEUCH, 68; dates of, 71.
COLENSO. BISHOP, on six-day creation, 274; his analy-
sis of Genesis, 71.
COLOSSIANS, 152, 154, 155, 158, 159, 160.
COMMANDMENTS, the Ten, two copies of, 68; not per-
fect, 332;
COMMUNION, significance of, 368.
COMPARISON of Hebrew and Septuagint versions, 173-
178.
COMTE, A., on benefits of chemical science, 287, 288; his
moral teaching, 330.
CONCEPTION, miraculous, 137, 286; not taught by Peter
and Paul, 251.
CONCUBINAGE, practiced by Catholic clergy, 385; al-
lowed by Luther and other Reformers, 385, 386, 389.
CONEY, see ZOOLOGY.
CONFUCIANISM, canonical books of, 7.
CONFUCIUS, his religion, 7-8.
CONJECTURES and guesses, 169.
CONSONANTS, Lord's prayer in, 169.
CONSTANTINOPLE, sixth council of, 30.
CONTRADICTIONS as to the Jewish kings, 198-209; 210-
230; of the Gospels, 238.
CONWAY, M. D., on Christianity and woman, 407, 408.
COPERNICUS, Luther's opinion of, 273.
COPIES OF THE BIBLE, differences between, 178.
COPYISTS, errors of, 165-166.
CORINTHIANS, 152, 153, 159, 160.
CORN, plucking of ears of permitted, 350.
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, 410.
CORRUPTIONS, textual, 163-180; by scribes, 167.
COSMOGONIES, the two of Genesis, 181-187.
COUNCILS, Christian, 30-33, of Nice, 30; William Penn
on, 32; Dean Milman on, 32; of Greek Church, 33;
438.
CRAWDER, Rev., on slavery, 378.
CREATION, two accounts of, 67; 181-187; purposes of,
187; contradictory dates of, according to the Hebrew,
Samaritan and Septuagint Bibles, 261; order of, 275.
CREDIBILITY OF THE BIBLE, 163-305.
CREDNER, on Revelation, 150.
Index. 469
CRITICISM, the higher Hupfeld on certainty and conse-
quences of, 72; pioneers of, 72, 73.
CRITICS, the higher, 72.
CRUCIFIXION, John the disciple at the, 132; time of,
and other contradictions relating to, 243ff.
CUSTOMS, who was called from receipt of, 241.
CUVIER, on ruminants, 282.
CYRENIUS, governor of Syria, 240; 267.
CYRUS, King, flourished nearly two centuries after
Isaiah, 84, 85; 92; 103; his decree to rebuild Jerusa-
lem, 302.
DAILLE, M., on early forgeries, 343.
DAMASCUS, Paul's conversion on journey to, 248; in
prophecy, 296.
DAMASUS, Pope, Jerome's address to, 178.
DAN, an anachronism, 61.
DANA, on the order of creation, 275, 276.
DANIEL, book of examined, 102-104; an alleged prophecy,
302.
DARIUS, "the Median," 103, 267.
DARIUS, the Persian, 105.
DATES OF ROOKS OF RIBLE, 46, 48, 49.
DAVID, not the author of Psalms, 95; contradictory state-
ments relating to, 198-202; census of, 284; character
of, 335; a liar, 341; a robber, 350; sons of Saul sacri-
ficed by, 362; a polygamist, 383; animal sacrifices by,
412.
DAVIDSON, Dr. S., on Papias, and Justin Martyr, and
N. T. canon, 24; on canonicity and inspiration of N.
T. books, 25; on the incompetence of Christian fathers,
28, 29, 30; would exclude Esther, 36; on Christ's al-
leged recognition of Moses, 54 ; the opinion of Eng-
land's learned voiced by, 74; on composite character
of Zechariah, 90; his admission as to books quoted by
Papias, 117, 118; Matthew admitted to be anonymous
by, 123; unknown authorship of Mark, 126; against
Johannine authorship, of John, 135; against authenti-
city of pastoral epistles, 157; on textual changes, 167.
DAY, meaning of the word in Genesis, 274.
DEBORAH, song of, 354.
DECALOGUE, two copies of, 68; an imperfect moral
code, 332.
DELUGE, two accounts of, 68, 285.
DEUEL, alias Reuel, 169.
DEUTERONOMIC CODE, 68; its style, 70.
DEUTERONOMY, when written and why, 51ff; Dr.
Kuenen on, 51; Dr. Oort on, 52; Dr. Briggs on, 52.
De WETTE, on origin of Hebrew Bible, 55; conclusions
470 Index.
of German critics presented by, 73; on Ephesians, 155;
on the pastoral epistles, 157.
DIAL, SUN, return of shadow on, 272.
DIONYSIUS, on Revelation, 150.
DISCIPLE, the, whom Jesus loved, 133.
DISCIPLES, the twelve, names of, 241.
DISCORDANT VERSIONS AND TRANSLATIONS,
172.
DISCREPANCY, numerical, 290.
DIVINITY. Horn's test of, 164.
DIVORCE, biblical law of, 406, 407.
DODWELL, Dr., his admission as to the New Testament,
112.
DOUAY BIBLE, 44.
DOUGLASS, F., on religious sanction for cruelty to slaves,
381.
DRAPER, J. W., on science and the church, 292.
EBIONITES, their gospel and doctrine, 121.
ECCLESIASTES, book of. 100. 101.
EDEN, two stories of, 181-187; rivers of, 278.
EDINBURGH REVIEW, on the rejection of Revelation,
151.
EDOM, an anachronism, 61.
EDUCATION, discouraged by the Bible, 402.
EGLON, assassination of, 353.
EGYPT, its desolation falsely prophesied by Isaiah, 296.
EGYPTIAN BIBLE, description of, 40; 438; New Testa-
ment, 172.
EGYPTIANS, cheating of by the Israelites, 347.
EGYPTIANS, gospel of, 36, 127.
EHUD, nn assassin, 353.
EICHORN. hooks rejected by, 36; against the aufhenti-
city of the pastoral epistles, 157.
ELIJAH, 82, 87.
ELISHA, not named in Chronicles, 82; edifying tales of,
312; a liar, 341; and the children, 411.
ELOHIM, deity, so called, 181.
ELOHISTIC CODE, 68; its character, 70: date, 71.
EMBREE, Rev. Dr., on indecency of the Bible, 392.
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, on composition of
Kings and Samuel. 82; on the origin of the synoptics,
131; 155. 156; on Thessalonians, 156.
EXDOR, woman of, 370.
ENOCH, apocryphal book of, cited by Jude, 145; Jude's
mistake about, 256.
ENON. 132; geographical error concerning, 132.
EPHESIANS, 152, 153. 154, 155, 157, 159, 160.
Index. 471
EPIPHANIUS, epistle of Jeremiah accepted by, 35; on
cannibalism of primitive Christians, 369.
EPISTLES, accepted and rejected, 33-38; Catholic, 140,
144-151; spurious, 155-158; pastoral, 156.
EPOCHS, days of creation construed as, 274; rejected by
Kalisch, 275.
ERASMUS, books doubted by, 36; authenticity of James
denied by, 145, 150; Greek version of N. T. made by,
170.
ERRORS, of transcribers and translators, 165-167, 172;
refusal of Bible advocates to correct, 456.
ESAU, a question about his wives, 195; cheating of by
Jacob, 346.
ESTHER, book of omitted by bishop of Sardis, 34; by
Athanasius, 35; by Luther, 37; self-evidently false;
Luther's characterizatiou, 102.
ETHIOPIC BIBLE, description of, 41; New Testament,
172.
ETHNOLOGY OF THE BIBLE, 283.
EUCHARIST, significance of, 368.
EUSEBIUS, his list of acknowledged and disputed books,
35; epistles of John classed as doubtful by, 148; on
the propriety of using falsehood, 344.
EVANSON, books rejected by, 36; on Revelation, 150.
EVIL-MERODACH, 82; a question relating to, 208.
EWALD, on authorship of Ezekiel, 88; of Song of Solo-
mon, 100; on Ephesians, 155.
EXODUS OP THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL FROM
EGYPT, 261, 262.
EZEKIEL, book of examined, 88.
EZRA, book of, 104, 105, 106; register of the Jews by
compared with that of Nehemiah, 231-237.
FADUS, when procurator of Judea, 142.
FAITH, justification by, 251.
FAITH AND HOPE, Volney on, 334.
FAITH CURE, 286.
FAMILIES OF JEWS, two lists compared, 231-237.
FATHERS, apostolic, an assertion that they were in-
spired, 37; knew nothing of the gospels, 110-113.
FATHERS, Christian, incompetence of, 28, 29, 30; knew
nothing of the gospels, 113-119; pronounced resistance
to established authorities sinful, 417.
FAUSTUS, Bishop, on authorship of gospel history, 137.
FELL, Bishop, on the license of forging, 343.
FIRST-BORN MALES OF ISRAEL, 286.
FISK, Rev. W., on slavery, 378.
FLOOD, two accounts of, 68, 285.
FOOLS, for Christ's sake, 403.
472 Index.
FOOTE, G. W., ou woman's proudest boast, 409.
FORGERIES, in Mark and John. 178.
FORGERY, concerning Trinity, 256.
FRAGMENTS, biblical. 106.
FREEMAN, sacrifice of, 366.
FRESHET, the great, 307.
FROGS, plague of, 310.
FROUDE, J. A., circulation of tbe Bible condemned by,
423.
FURMAN, Rev. R., on slavery, 377.
GAGE, Matilda Joslyu, on Marquette, 408.
GALATIANS, 152, 153, 159, 160.
GAMALIEL, speecb of, 141, 142.
GARDENER, Helen H., on wrongs authorized by the
Bible, 409.
GATES, within thy, a phrase showing post-Mosaic author-
ship, 58.
Genesis, two cosmogonies of, 181-187.
GEOGRAPHY OF THE BIBLE, 278, 279.
GEOLOGY, the Bible and. 273-277.
GEORGE III., abhorred abolition, 377.
GESENIUS, on age of Hebrew language, 56.
GETTYSBURG, killed in battle of, 265.
GIANTS, biblical, 283.
GIDEON, a polygamist, 383.
(JIKSELER, Dr., on forgery, 343.
GILES, Rev., on the failure of Justin Martyr to mention
the gospels, 116; on original language of gospels, 124.
GLADSTONE, an anomalv, 458.
GNOSTICS, cannibalism of, 369.
GOD OF THE BIBLE, in Psalms, 96; is he omnipresent?
317; is he omnipotent? 318; is he omniscient and im-
mutable? 319; is he visible and comprehensible?
320; is there one only, and in what form does he ex-
ist? 32 Iff.
GOLDEN RULE, a borrowed gem, 333.
GOLIATH OF GATH, by whom killed, 263, 264.
GOODELL, Rev. W., on slave owning, 379; incident re-
lated by, 380, 381.
GOSPELS, why four were chosen, 26, 27; accepted and
rejected, 33ff; when it is affirmed they were written,
108; unknown to Paul, Peter, and John, 109, 110;
not mentioned by apostolic fathers, 110-113; nor by the
Christian fathers, 113-119; when composed, 119; the
internal evidence, 119, 120; original language of, 124;
evidences of a common source of parallel passages, 129;
130; the four, 136-139; harmony of, 238ff.
Index. 473
GOTHIC BIBLE, description of, 41.
GREEK VERSION OP N. T., 170.
GREG, W. R., on the fourth gospel, 134; on prophecies,
304.
GREGORY THE GREAT, epistle to Laodiceans accepted
by, 35.
GROTIUS, Jude, doubted by, 145; on II. Peter, 147.
GUESSES AND CONJECTURES, 169.
HABAKKUK, 89, 92.
HAGGAI, 89, 92.
HAGIOGRAPHA, 13; what it comprises, 94-107.
HALE, on Witchcraft, 371.
HAMILTON, Sir W., on polygamy and the Reformers,
385
HARE, see ZOOLOGY.
HARLOTS, mother of identified by her daughters, 303.
HEART, regarded by Jesus as the seat of intelligence,
285
HEBREW VERSION OP THE BIBLE, 39; its origin,
55" 435.
HEBREW LANGUAGE, its peculiarities, 168.
HEBREWS, ancient, did not regard Moses as the author
of the Pentateuch, 55; not in Canaan when overrun
by Rameses, 203.
HEBREWS, epistle to, 152, 155, 157, 159, 160.
HEBREWS, gospel of, 36; the supposed original gospel
of Mlatthew, 120, 121; gospel used by Nazarenes and
Ebionites, 121.
HEBRON, formerly Kirjath-arba, 59.
HELIODORUS, on falsehood as a good thing, 344.
HENGSTENBERG, on date of Ecclesiastes, 101.
HERMAS, Shepherd of, 36, 111, 112.
HEROD. 239; and the infants, 268.
HERSCHEL, on the distance of stars, 272.
HEXATEUCH, Briggs on non-Mosaic authorship of, 52,
54.
HEZEKIAH, 90.
HIEROGLYPHICS, Pentateuch could not have been writ-
ten in, 56.
HILKIAH, his finding of the book of the law, 51.
HINDOOS, sacred books of, 5.
HIRSCH, Baron, 331.
HISTORY AND THE BIBLE, conflict between. 260-270.
HITCHCOCK, Rev. R. D., on formation of N. T. canon,
23, 24; on fragmentary character of Jeremiah, 86; on
Job as the oldest of Bible books, 98; on authenticity
474 Index.
of the gospels, 108; on Philemon, 154; on prophecv,
293.
HOBBES, aim of moral conduct stated by, 330.
HODGE, Prof., on slavery, 378.
HOG, see ZOOLOGY.
HOLINESS code, 69, 71.
HOLTZMANN, Acts shown to borrow from Josephus by,
142.
HOOYKAAS, Dr., the gospels and Acts declared to be of
unknown authorship by, 138; inaccuracy of Acts de-
clared deliberate by, 143; I. John called an imitation by,
148; epistles accepted by, 154; against Pauline author-
ship of Hebrews, 157.
HORIMS, meution of, 58.
HORN, Rev. T. H., his test of divinity, 164.
HORSES, houghed by Joshua and David, 413.
HOSE A, 89; cited by Matthew, 90; ordered to marry a
prostitute. 389.
HUG, Dr., on the Ebionites and Nazareues, 121; liis ad-
mission concerning Zacharias, 122.
HUMAN SACRIFICES, 361-3G7.
HUME, David, on miracles, 316.
HUPFELD, on consequences of higher criticism, 72.
HUXLEY, T. H., on Adamitic monogenism, 283; on ex-
tinguished theologians, 291.
IGNATIUS, 36; epistle of, 110, 112, 113, 119.
IGNORANCE, encouraged by the Bible, 401ff.
IMMORTALITY, affirmed and denied by Paul, 251, 252.
INDIA, sacred books of, 5.
IXCEKSOLL. on Psalm, cix, 419.
INQUISITION, founded on teachings of Paul, 421.
INSPIRATION. Goldwin Smith on partial, 238; not
claimed bv Bible writers, 444.
INSPIRED NUMBERS, 231-237.
INSTITUTES OF MENU, 7.
INTEMPERANCE SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE,
394-401.
INTERPOLATIONS, how made, 166.
INTOLERANCE FOSTERED BY THE BIBLE, 418-
422.
IRENJEUS, affirms that Ezra was inspired to rewrite
lost scriptures, 22; founder of Catholic Church and
N. T. canon, 25; his collection of books: his reason for
choosing four gospels, 26, 27; first mentions all of the
four gospels, 118; on place of writing of Matthew, 124;
on John and the Passover. 133; I. Peter rejected by,
145.
Index. 475
ISAAC, lying by, 341.
ISAIAH, examination of, 83-86; Abbott and Cheyne on,
85; partial identity witb book of Kings, 86; failures
as a prophet, 294ff.
ISHMAEL, son of Hagar, 194, 195.
ISLAM, sacred books of, 8.
ISRAEL, kingdom of, 212-215; loss in battle with Judah,
265.
ISRAELITES, their marvelous increase, 196, 197; warri-
ors, 201; number of, 284, 286.
ITALIC BIBLE, description of, 41; New Testament, 172.
IVA-LUSH, king of Assyria, 266.
JACOB, his coming to Arbah, 59; souls of the house of,
their marvelous increase, 196, 197; device of for mark-
ing cattle, 307; character of, 334; deceitfulness of,
341; Esau defrauded by, 346; his wives both thieves,
350; a polygamist, 383.
JAEL, a murderess, 354.
JAIR, judge of Israel, a misstatement concerning, 60, 61.
JAMES, epistle of examined, 144ff; 160; Paul contra-
dicted by, 251.
JAPAN, moral without the Bible, 426.
JASHER, book of appealed to by Joshua, 78.
JEFFERSON, Thomas, on tiie Trinity, 289; Jehovah,
characterized by, 334; on priestly hostility to libertv,
417.
JEHOIACHIN, age of, 208.
JEHOIAKIM, 82, 87; false prophecy concerning, 297.
JEHORAM, his reign, 206; murder of, 352.
JEHOSHAPHAT, when did he die? 210-230.
JEHOVAH IN PSALMS, 96; known by name of the
patriarchs, 195, 196; as described in the Bible, 317-
326; characterized by Jefferson, 334; deceitfulness of,
339ff.
JEHOVAH, Elohim, 181.
JEHOVAH-JIREH, 59.
JEHOVISTIC DOCUMENT, 68; its style, 70; date, 71;
a peculiarity of, 182.
JEHU, murders by, 353.
JEPHTHAHS DAUGHTER, sacrifice of, 363, 364.
JEREMIAH, book of examined, 86-88; Blaney's arrange-
ment, 87; disordered and fragmentary, 87; a liar, 341.
JEREMIAH, epistle of, 30, 35.
JERICHO, the spoils of, 349.
JEROBOAM AND ABIJAH, 205; false prophecy con-
cerning, 297.
JEROME, books contained in canon of, 29; his fitness,
30; compiler of Vulgate, 41; on the translation of
4/6
Index.
Matthew, 122; gospels enumerated by, 127; Jude,
doubted by, 145; ou authorship of epistles of John,
148; guided by conjecture, 169; on variations in N.
T., 178.
JERUSALEM, 263; when occupied by Israelites, 264; de-
cree of Cyrus to rebuild, 302; Christ's prediction con-
cerning destruction of, 303.
JESUS, when born, 239; in what, 240; what his parents
did with him, 240; was he called the carpenter or the
carpenter's son? 242; his prediction of Peter's treach-
ery, 243; color of his robe, at what hour crucified,
what was offered .tim to drink, the thieves who re-
viled him, 243; inscription on his cross, lawfulness
of his death, women who visited his sepulchre, 244;
time of their visit, whom they saw, where he first
appeared to his disciples, 245; words attributed to him
by Paul, hanged on a tree, 255; genealogies of, 289,
290.
JEWS, sacred books of, 9-10; families of, two lists com-
pared, 231-237; first appearance of, not mentioned by
Herodotus, 263.
JEZEBEL, death of, 352.
JOB, book of examined, 98-100; probable date, 99; muti-
lations and mistranslations, 100.
JOEL, 89, 91.
JOHANNINE CHURCHES. 27, 28.
JOHAXXIXE IXFLUEXCE, forgery committed to coun-
teract, 134.
JOHN, gospel of examined, 131-136; not the work of a
Jew; geographical errors in, 132; author not at the
crucifixion, 133; made by a forgery to support Petrine
supremacy, 134; none of the events witnessed by
John recorded by; few coincidences with the other
gospels, 135.
JOHX, the disciple of Jesus, could not have written
the gospel of John, 132ff; 147; 140.
JOHX, knew nothing of the gospels, 109; quoted by Tieo-
philus, 118; epistles of examined, 147-149; spurious
passages in, 148; 160.
JOHX THE BAPTIST, prophecy applied to by Mark, 91.
JOHX THE PRESBYTER, 148.
JOHX THE REVELATOR; Paul denounced as a liar by,
258.
JOHXSOX, Edwin, epistles pronounced spurious by, 153.
JOXAH, named by Christ. 89, 92; adventure of, 315.
JOXES, Rev. J., on apocryphal books cited by primitive
writers, 34; apocryphal defined by, 163.
JORDAX, the coasts bevond, 279.
JOSEPH, by whom sold, 190.
Index. 477
JOSEPH, journey of to Bethlehem to be taxed, 267;
timely dream of, 314.
JOSEPHUS, on time of Theudas, 142; an interregnum
between Israel's kings denied by, 228.
JOSHUA, book of, events described in occurred after
death of Moses, 57; formerly part of the Pentateuch,
and why detached, 76; could not have been written
by Joshua, 77, 78; appeals to book of Jasher; consists
of two parts, 78.
JOSHUA, sun and moon stopped by, 272; his speech to all
Israel, 288; looting for Jehovah by, 349; ravages com-
mitted by, 359.
JOSIAH, successor of, 208.
JOTHAM, the reign of, 207.
JUDAH, sceptre of, 62; rapid multiplication of, 197;
warriors of, 201; kingdom of, 210-212.
JUDAS OF GALILEE, 142, 269.
JUDE, epistle of, its authorship, 144; date, similarity to
II. Peter; authenticity of doubted, 145; mistake of
about Enoch, 256.
JUDGES, book of examined, 78-80; not written by Samuel,
79; a work of several authors, 80; Dr. Oort on com-
piler of, 270.
KALISCH, Dr., a contradiction acknowledged by, 192;
on the derivation of biblical astronomy, 272; rejects
epochal interpretation of "day" in Gen. i, 275; on
Bible zoology, 282; on human sacrifices among the
Jews, 364.
KEELER, B. C, on believers in the Bible, 458.
KEITH, on prophecy, 293.
KIDNAPPING OF WIVES COMMANDED, 400.
KING, the five, 7.
KING JAMES'S BIBLE, 43.
KINGS, books of, properly one with Samuel, 81; mixture
of history and fiction, by various authors, 82.
KINGS, the Jewish, many contradictions concerning, 198-
209.
KIRJATH-ARBA, changed to Hebron, 59.
KNOWLEDGE, opposed by the Bible and the clergy, 401-
403.
KORAN, the, 8, 9.
KUENEN, Dr., on the purpose for which Deuteronomy
was written, 51; denies Davidic authorship of Psalms,
96; gospels and Acts pronounced anonymous by, 138;
epistles accepted by, 154.
LABAN, defrauding of by Jacob, 346.
478
Index.
LADD, authors and dates of Bible books affirmed to be
unknown by, 49; 130.
LAMENTATIONS, book of rejected, 34; alleged author-
ship of, 101.
LANDMARKS, injunction against removing, 60.
LANGUAGE, origin of, 284, 285.
LANGUAGE, HEBREW, did not exist in time of Moses,
50; its peculiarities, 168.
LAODICEA, synod of, 30.
LAODICEANS, accepted by Gregory and Alfric, 35.
LARDNER, Dr. Nathaniel, books questioned by, 36; on
Christian lying, 343.
LAW, books of the, 12.
LEAH, a thief, 350.
LECKY, W. E. H., on opposition of Christian fathers to
resisting established authority, 417.
LE CLERC, Jean asserts that sense of O. T. is guessed at,
169.
LEGION, a Latin word, 124.
LEVI, called from the receipt of customs, 241.
LEY DON, John of, polygamy established by, 386.
LIARS, biblical. 339-342.
LIBERTY, religious, denied by the Bible, 418.
LICE, plague of, 310.
LINCOLN, A., his test of an action, 331.
LINDSAY, Rev. A., on Bible writers and scientific truth,
442.
LONGEVITY OF BIBLE CHARACTERS, 284.
LORD, Rev. N., on slavery, 378.
LORD'S PRAYER, in consonants, 109; old and new ver-
sions of, 177.
LOST BOOKS, cited by writers of the Bible, 17; 23.
LOT'S WIFE, 287.
LUCAR, authenticity of James denied by, 145.
LUCKE, Johannine authorship of Revelation denied by,
149.
LUKE, the apostle, asserted to be the author of Acts, 141.
LUKE, gospel of examined, 126-128; who was its author?
126; gospels referred to by, 127.
LUTHER, Martin, six books rejected by, 37, 38; his ver-
sion of the Bible, 42; John rejected by, 90; on Job
as an argument, 98; 99; Esther rejected by, 102; epis-
tle of James rejected, and Jude declared a plagiarism,
145; on Revelation, 150, 151; on Pauline authorship
of Hebrews, 157; on Zwingle's Bible, and Zwingle on
Bible of, 171; on Copernicus, 273; on witches, 371;
polygamy allowed by, 385, 386; and concubinage, 389;
reason condemned by, 403.
LYING, 339-345.
Index. 479
MACAULAY, oil church support of tyrauuy, 418.
McCLINTOCK, Dr. John, on N. T. canon, 31.
MAGUIRE, Rev., on biblical indecency, 392.
MAHABHARATA, 6.
MALACHI, 89, 90, 91.
MANNA, mention of, against Mosaic authorship, 57-58.
MANUSCRIPTS OP BIBLE, ancient, 41, 42.
MARCION, gospel of, the source of Luke, 128; epistles ex-
cluded by, 156.
MARK, prophecy quoted by, 91; gospel of examined, 124-
126; not Petrine; opinions as to where written, 124;
paralleled in Matthew and Luke; last twelve verses
interpolated, 125; the author unknown, 126.
MARQUETTE, law of, 408.
MARRIAGE, Paul's despicable dissertation on, 405; bibli-
cal, 406, 407.
MARSH, Bishop, his admission as to the gospels, 111; on
late date of Matthew, 123; on the gospels as a compila-
tion, 130.
MARTINEAU, Rev. J., on lost gospels, 36.
MARTYR, Justin, his canon, 24; does not mention the gos-
pels, 113-115; on the genealogy of Christ, 116; 119.
MASSEY, Gerald, on retarding of science by the Penta-
teuch, 291.
MATHEMATICS OF THE BIBLE, 289, 290.
MATTHEW, Hosea, Micah and Zechariah cited by, 90;
gospel of examined, 120-124; was he or Levi called from
the receipt of customs? 241.
MATTHIAS, gospel of, 127.
MAYERHOFF, on the purpose of Jude, 145; on Ephesians
and Colossians, 155.
MEAT, permission to sell diseased, 348.
MELITO, Esther and Lamentations rejected by, 34.
MEMOIRS OF THE APOSTLES, 116.
MENU, Institutes of, 7.
MEREDITH, on cannibalism of earlv Christians, 369.
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES, 299-302.
METHODISTS IN THE REVOLUTION, 416.
METHUSELAH, survived the flood, 190-191.
MICAH, 89; cited by Matthew, 90.
MICHAEL, apocryphal book of, cited by Jude, 145.
MICHAELIS, on Revelation, 150; prophecy concerning
Jesus Christ rejected by, 299; on want of authen-
ticity of the gospels, 111, 122; on composition of
gospels. 131.
MICHELET, on Marquette, 408.
MIDIANITES, despoiled by divine command, 349, 357.
MILL, Dr., number of biblical readings found by, 175.
480 Index.
MILMAN, Dean, on Christian councils, 32; on hallowed de-
ceit, 343.
MIRACLES, Humorous chapter on: The First Cut-
let— The Great Freshet — Ringstreaked, Speckled,
and Spotted, 307; The Waters Were Di-
vided— Quails, 308; Three Good Snake Stories,
309; More of Aaron's Tricks— The Sun Stood Still
— Samson's Feats, 310; The Loquacious Ass, 311;
A Bear Story — The Boy Sneezed, 312; Shadrach, Me-
shach and Abednego — Take Me Up — The Confiding
Husband, 313; They Did Eat and Were Filled, 314;
Lazarus, Come Forth, 315; 442.
MISTRANSLATIONS, 100, 171.
MODELS, Bible, 334-336.
MOHAMMED, 9.
MOHAMMEDANS, Bible of, 8.
MONTEFIORE, M., 331.
MOON, worship of by the Jews, 65.
MORAL GUIDES, 427.
MORALITY OF THE BIBLE— What is morality? 329.
Bible Codes, 331; Bible Models, 334; Immoral teach-
ings of the Bible, 336; Lying, 339; Cheating, 345;
Stealing, 349; Murder, 351; War, 356; Human sacri-
fices, 361; Cannibalism, 367; Witchraft, 370; Slavery,
374; Polygamy, 382; Adultery, 388; Obscenity, 391;
Intjemperance, 394; Vagrancy, 399; Ignorance, 401;
Injustice to women, 404; Unkinduess to children, 409;
Cruelty to animals, 411; Tyranny, 415; Intolerance,
418.
MORMON, book of, believed to be a part of God's word, 37.
MORMON POLYGAMY BASED ON THE BIBLE, 384.
MORDECAI, book of Esther credited to, 102.
MOSLEY, Rev., treatment of married slaves by, 379.
MOSES, not the author of the Pentateuch, 51-68; his recog-
nition by Christ, etc., 54; not regarded as author of
tlie Pentateuch by ancient Hebrews, 55; account of
the death of, 56; speech of to all Israel, 288; charac-
ter of, 335; commanded by God to deceive, 340; a
murderer, 351; his fiendish mandate, 357.
MOSES, law of, not the Pentateuch, 66.
MOSHEIM, on lying among primitive Christians, 343.
MOTHERHOOD, made a sin by Levitical law, 406.
MULTITUDE, feeding of the, 314.
MUNCHAUSEN TALES OF THE BIBLE, 306-316.
MURATORI CANON, 34.
MURDER, enjoined by the Bible, 351-356.
MYERS, Rev. F., on the collection and canonicity of Old
Testament books, 22.
rndex. 481
NAHUM, 89, 92.
NAZARITE, Paul a, 257; wiue permitted to, 396.
NAZARENES, their gospel, 121.
NEBLIM, 10.
NEBUCHADNEZZAR, 102; failure of to destroy Tyre,
296.
NEHEMIAH, book of 104, 105; his register of the Jews
compared with that of Ezra, 231-237.
NEWMAN, Prof., on Matthew xxiii, 35; concerning
Zacharias, 123.
NEW TESTAMENT, books of, first so-called by Tertullian,
13; list of authors and dates, 47, 48.
NICE, council of, 30.
NIGHTINGALE, F., 331.
NINEVEH, false prophecy concerning, 92.
NOAH, his great age, 189, 190; animals taken into the ark
by, 191, 192.
NOBAH, time of, 60, 61.
NORTON, Prof., on supposed date of Pentateuch, 56; his
admission as to evidence of apostolic fathers, 112.
OBADIAH, 89, 92.
OBSCENITY OF THE BIBLE, 391ff; Noaa Webster
on, 392.
OG, king of Bashan, his bedstead, 59; 353.
OLIVE LEAF, see BOTANY.
OLD TESTAMENT, subdivisions of, 12, 13; arrangement
of, 14; how named; divisions, 15; by whom collected
unknown, 22; list of authors and dates of books of, 46,
47.
OMISSIONS, 166.
OMRI, the length of his reign, 206.
ONESIMUS, a slave returned by Paul, 154, 376.
OORT, Dr., on authorship of Deuteronomy, 52; on Jair and
Nobah, 60, 61; on composite character of books of
Samuel, 81; on doubtful character of Ezekiel, 88;
denies David's authorship of Psalms, 96; and Solo-
mon's authorship of Proverbs, 97; on a mistaken tra-
dition concerning Lamentations, 101; gospels and
Acts termed anonymous by, 138; epistles accepted by,
154; on compiler of Judges, 270; on sacrifice of
Jephthah's daughter, 363.
OPHIR, gold brought from, 204.
ORIGEN, books doubted or accepted by, 34; Jude doubted
by, 145; comment of on Hebrews, 157; on variety in
scriptural readings, 175.
OWEN, R. D., on American Revolutionists, 416.
482
Index.
PAINE, on fragment of Isaiah, 86; declaration by con-
cerning non-Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, 73;
his religion, 331; on Revelation, 436.
PALESTINE, population of, 284.
PALEY, on morality, 329.
PAPIAS, unacquainted with N. T. canon, 24; does not
mention Matthew and Mark, 116-117; preferred tradi-
tion, 117.
PARABLES, intended to deceive, 342.
PARALLEL PASSAGES from the gospels, 129-130.
PARSEES, Bible of, 8.
PARTIAL INSPIRATION, 238.
PARTURITION, pains of attributed to a curse, 286.
PASSOVER, a contradiction as to Jesus' observance of,
132.
PASTORAL EPISTLES, forgeries, 156.
PATRIARCHAL age, the, 188-197.
PATRIARCHS, names and ages of the, 188; 284.
PAUL, knew nothing of the gospels, 110; genuine epistles
of, 152-159; doubtful, 153-159; probably hallucinated,
159; the real author of the Christian religion, 247; con-
tradictions about conversion of, 248, 249; his alleged
visit to Jerusalem; an apostle to the Gentiles, 249; his
theological teachings, 250; Jesus contradicted by, 252;
samples of his reasoning, 253; his misquotations of
scripture, 254; performed circumcision, became a
Nazarite, 257; his hypocrisy and dissimulation: de-
nounced as a liar by John, 258; deceitfulness of, 342;
inquisition founded on teachings of, 421; duty of wives
prescribed by, 404, 405.
PAULINE EPISTLES, 152-160.
PAULINE SECTS, 27, 28.
PAULUS JOVIUS, his bank of lies. 345.
PENN. William, on Christian councils, 32.
PENTATEUCH, authenticity of, 50; Mosaic authorship
examined, 51-68; its origin, 55; Renan on, 55; Prof.
Norton on, 56; its religion and legislation. 67; docu-
ments forming, the work of various authors and com-
pilers, 68, 71; codes, 71; Spinoza on, 73; Hebrew and
Septuagint compared, 173-178.
PERIZZITES, the, 62. 63.
PERSECUTION, religious, fostered by the Bible, 418-422.
PERSIA, sacred books of, 8.
PESHITO. description of, 40.
PETER, knew nothing of the gospels, 110; his appointment
to be the foundation of the church, 123; instructed to
"feed my lambs," 134; his denial of Jesus, 242, 243;
Index. 483
his missiou, 250; his treachery and its reward, 256,
257.
PETER, epistles of, 144; similarity to Jude; date, 145; a
Pauline document, 146; II. Peter a forgery, 146; origi-
nal title, 147.
PETRINE CHURCHES, 27, 28.
PETRINE TEACHINGS, forgery committed to exalt, 134.
PHARAOH, his taking of Sarah, 193.
PHILEMON, 152, 154, 158, 159, 160.
PHILIP OF HESSE, authorized to have two or more
wives, 386.
PHILIPPIANS, 152, 153, 154, 158, 159, 160.
PHINEHAS, rewarded for a murder, 352.
PHYSICS OF THE BIBLE, 288.
PHYSIOLOGY OF THE BIBLE, 285.
PLEIADES, 99.
POLYCARP, 36; his epistle 111, 112, 113, 119; ob-
served the passover with John, 133.
POLYGAMY, 382-387; proved lawful by scripture, 383; not
prohibited by the New Testament, 384; allowed by
Protestant Reformers, 385, 386.
POA^ERTY, Christ the panegyrist of, 399, 400.
PRATT, Orson, his biblical defense of polygamy, 384.
PRAYER CURE, 286.
PRIESTLEY, Dr., his standard of right, 330; on early
Christian dishonesty, 343.
PRIESTLY CODE, 68ff; its style, 70; date, 71; its char-
acteristics, 182, 187.
PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS, adulteries of, 390, 391.
PROMISE, breach of, 340.
PROPHECYv not always prediction, 293; applied to Jesus
Christ, 299; forged, 301; of the second coming, 303;
Greg on, 304, 305.
PROPHET, functions of the, 293.
PROPHETS, books of the Old Testament so called, 12,
76-93; minor, 89; cited by evanglists, 90; only a few
mentioned by Bible writers, 93.
PROVERBS, book of examined, 97, 98.
PSALM CIX, Ingersoll on, 419.
PSALMS, book of examined, 94-97; but few written by
David, 95; God and Jehovah in, 96; when written, 97.
PSAM1ETICUS, reign of, 65.
PUL, king of Assyria, 89; a myth, 266.
PUNISHMENT, corporal, advocated, 410; endless, 419-
420.
PURANAS, 6.
QUAILS, 308.
484
Index.
RABBATH. Og's bedstead at, 60.
RACHEL, place of death of, 59; a thief, 350.
RAINBOW, delusion concerning, 288.
RAMA, 6.
RAMAYANA, 6.
RAMESES III., found no Hebrews in Canaan, 263.
READINGS, diverse, 175.
REASON, condemned by Luther, 403.
REBECCA, deceit of, 341.
RED SEA. passage of, 262; 289; 308.
RELIGIONS, Asia, the source of, 5.
RENAN, on Hebrew view of Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateucii, 55; assertions of concerning Acts, 143; 146,
150; on tiie origin of language, 285.
RESURRECTION, doctrine of, proves late origin of gos-
pels, 157.
REUEL, alias Deuel, 169.
REVELATION, a written one unnecessary, 445.
REVELATION, book of, rejected by Greek Church, 28,
33; by Council of Nice, 30;' by ancient scholars, 35;
by Calvin, Erasmus, et al., 36; by Luther, 38; theo-
ries concerning; its purport; Bible Dictionary on au-
thorship of; not by author of fourth gospel; opinion
of Lucke on, 14!); Johannine authorship denied by De
Wette and Ewald; by Luther, Erasmus, Michaelis,
Schleiermacher, Credner, Zeller, Evanson, Baur,
Renau, and Davidson; contention of the Alogi; Diony-
sius on, 150; rejected by modern churchmen; Luther's
comment on, 151; copy of mutilated, 171; its false
predictions, 258.
REVISED VERSION, 43; its source, 170; alterations
made in, 176.
REVOLUTION, Methodists in the, 416.
REVOLUTIONARY FATHERS, their resistance to the
"ordinance of God," 416.
RIDPATH, J. C, on King James' translators, 170.
RIGVEDA, 6.
RIVERS OF GENESIS, 278.
RIZPAH, her vigil, 361.
ROBBERY, submission to enjoined by Christ, 350.
ROBERTS, Rev. A., on usages of translators, 170.
ROLLS, the Five, 100-102.
ROMANS, epistle to, 152, 159, 160.
RUMINANTS, Cuvier on, 282.
RUSSIA, cannibalism in, 370; witchcraft in, 373.
RUTH, book of, 102.
SABBATH, gathering sticks on, 58; institution of, 187.
Index. 485
SACRAMENTAL FEAST, significance of, 368.
SACRED BOOKS, 5-10.
SACRIFICES, human, 361-367; animal, 412.
SADDER, Parsee Bible, 8.
SAMARITAN BIBLE, 39; its date of creation, 261.
SAMSON, a sun-god, 79; feats of, 310.
SAMUEL, books of; not by Samuel, whose death I. Sam.
records; II. Sam. does not allude to Samuel; a work of
several unknown authors, 80, 81.
SAMUEL, told to deceive, 340.
SARAH, place of death of, 59; 'ier relations with Pharaoh
and Abimelech, 193; her attempt to deceive, 341.
SARDIS, bishop of, his old Testament list, 34.
SAUL, his defeat of Agag, 62; sons of sacrificed, 362; and
the woman of Endor, 370.
SAYCE, A. H., rejects Daniel as legendary and unhistori-
cal, 103.
SCALIGER, II. Peter rejected by, 36, 147; on early
Christian use of lies, 343.
SCHAFF, Rev. Philip, exhilarating nature of Bible wine
asserted by, 398.
SCHLEIERMACHER, I. Tim. rejected by, 36; calls Luke
a compilation, 127, 128; 150.
SCHOLARS, ancient Christian, rejected much of the can-
on, 33-35.
SCHRADER, I. Thess., doubted by, 154.
SCHWEGLER, belief of as to I. Peter, 146.
SCIENCE, the Bible and, 271-292; Draper on^ 292.
SCRIBES, corruptions by, 167.
SCRIPTURES, Jewish, versions of, 39, 438; ancient
Christian, 40, 41; modern, 42-44.
SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, Paul's belief in, 252;
a prediction not fulfilled, 303.
SENNACHERIB, lived after Isaiah, 84.
SEPTUAGINT, the, 40, 96; compared with Hebrew, 173;
date of creation according to, 261, 438.
SERMON ON THE MOUNT, of little value, 332.
SERPENTS, fiery, 309.
SHADRACH, et al., 313.
SHEOL, a mistranslation, 171.
SHIEL, R. L., on biblical indecency, 392.
SHILOH, an anachronism, 62; applied to Christ, 301.
SICK, praying for, 28.
SILENCE, women condemned to by Paul, 404, 405.
SIMEON, epistle of the original II. Peter, 147.
SIMMS. Rev. E. D., on slavery, 377.
SINAITIC MS., description of, 41, 42.
SISERA, death of, 354.
486
Index.
SIVA, a god of the Hindoos, 6.
SLAVE, a, tied behind minister's gig, 380.
SLAVERY, 374, 382; clerical defenders of, 376-379; abol-
ished by French revolutionists, 376.
SMITH, Ben, sacrifice of, 365.
SMITH, Goldwin, on partial inspiration, 238.
SMITH, Prof. R., gospels characterized by, 131.
SNAKE STORIES, three good ones, 309.
SNEEZE CURE, the, 312.
SOLOMON, his time and his establishment. 63; not the
author of Proverbs, 97; a polygamist, 383; intemper-
ance of, 396; sacrifices by, 413.
SOLOMON, Song of, 100, 101.
SOLOMON'S TEMPLE, contradictory details concerning,
202-204; number engaged in construction of, 265.
SONG OF SOLOMON, 100, 101.
SOLTRY, Jules, -lis criticism of I. Peter, 146; on human
sacrifices among the Jews, 364.
SOUTH, Dr., on Revelation, 151.
SPINOZA, Benedict, declaration by concerning non-Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch, 73; on date of Ezra
and Jeremiah, 105.
SPRAGUE, Rev., inability of to answer Orson Pratt, 384.
SPRENGER, Dr., on number* of executions for witchcraft,
372.
SPURIOUS EPISTLES, 155-158.
STANLEY, Dean, on two narratives of creation, 187.
STANTON, Elizabeth Cady, on N. T. polygamy, 384; on
biblical degradation of woman, 409.
STARS, worship of by the Jews, 65; distance of, 272.
STAVES, were the apostles commanded to carry them?
241.
STEALING, 349, 350.
STEELE, W. F., on biblical variations, 178, 180.
STICKS, gathered on the Sabbath day, 58.
STHAUSS. declares Mark to be a compilation from first
and t.iird gospels, 126.
STRINGFELLOW, Rev., on Paul and abolitionists, 376.
STUART, Rev. M., on the word "day" in Gen. i, 274.
STUART, Rev., on Paul and abolitionists, 376.
SUN, worship of by the Jews, 65; standing still of, 310.
SUNNA, a Mohammedan sacred book, 9.
"SUPERNATURAL RELIGION," on Petrine influence in
Mark, 125; fails to find trace of gospels in first century,
137; on value of knowledge derived from super-
natural sources, 159.
SUSANNAH, History of. 104.
SWINE, see ZOOLOGY.
Index. 487
SWORD, a curse on the non-user of, 315.
SYCHAR, uot in Samaria, 279.
SYNESIUS, on the necessity of lying, 344.
SYNOPTICS, the, evidences of a common source, 129.
SYRIAC, N. T., 172, 438.
TABERNACLE, a tent, 63.
TALMUD, a sacred book of 'the Jews, 10.
TANTRAS, a Hindoo sacred book, 6.
TATIAN, gospel of, used by early churches, 35; epistles
rejected by, 157.
TAXING OF THE WORLD BY A. CAESAR, not histori-
cal, 267.
TAYLOR, Jeremy, on submission to authority, 417.
TAYLOR, Rev., on slavery, 378.
TEMPLE, of Jerusalem, its destruction predicted, 303.
TEMPLE, Solomon's, contradictory details of, 202-204;
dimensions and number engaged in construction of,
264, 265.
TERTULLIAN, a founder of the Catholic Church and N.
T. canon, 26; apocryphal books cited by, 34; classed
Hebrews as apocryphal, 157.
TEXTUAL CORRUPTIONS, 163-180.
THADDEUS, an apostle, 36.
THEODORET, says gospel of Tatian was used by early
churches, 35.
THEOLOGIANS, extinguished, 291.
THEOPHILUS, his allusion to John, 118; who was lie?
126; 140.
THESSALONIANS, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160.
THEUDAS, time of, 141, 142; an anachronism relating to,
269.
THIRLWALL, Bishop, regarding the composition of Luke,
128
THOMAS, gospel of, 127.
THOMPSON, Rev. W. M., on biblical wine, 398.
THREE HOLY CHILDREN, Song of, 104.
THURLOW, Lord Chancellor, on abolition, 377.
TIMOTHY, epistles to, 36; 152, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160.
TIMOTHY, circumcision of by Paul, 257.
TITUS, 152, 155, 156, 157, 160.
TOLA, a judge of Israel, 60.
TOMBS, demoniacs who came out of, 242.
TORAH, 9.
TRAMPS, the truest followers of Chrjst, 401.
TRANSCRIBERS, errors of, 165-167.
TRANSLATION, a perfect one impossible, 167ff.
TRANSLATORS, errors of, 167-172.
488
Index.
TREES, see BOTANY.
TRENT, council of, 32.
TRINITY, passage supporting it a forgery, 256; Jefferson
on, 289.
TWELVE APOSTLES, gospel of, 127.
TYCHICUS, Philemon sent to, 154.
TYNDALE'S BIBLE, 43.
TYNDALL, Prof. J., on apostolic forgeries, 158; on origin
of morality, 428.
TYRANNY SUPPORTED BY THE BIBLE, 415-418.
TYRANTS, submission to enjoined, 415.
TYRE, prophecy concerning, 295, 296.
UPANI SHADS, a Hindoo sacred book, 6.
VAGRANCY, encouraged by the Bible, 399-401.
VAN DYKE. Rev., on biblical wine, 398.
VARIATIONS, 179.
VATICAN MS., description of, 42.
VEDASj Hindoo sacred book, 5.
VERSIONS OF JEWISH SCRIPTURES, Hebrew,
Samaritan, 39; Septuagint, 40; of ancient Christian,
PesJito, Egyptian, 40; Ethiopic, Gothic, Italic, Vul-
gate, 41: modern, Luther's, 42; Wicliffe's, Tyndale's,
King James, Revised, 43; Douay, 44; contain different
books, 172; compared, 172-180.
VIRTUES, Christian, Voluey on, 334.
VISHNU, a Hindoo deity, <>.
VOGT, Carl, on triumph of geology, 277.
VOLKMAR, declares Mark to be Pauline, 125.
VOLNEY, on virtues, 334; his statement of moral duties,
428.
VOWELS, absent in the Hebrew alphabet, 168.
VULGATE, description of, 40; 438.
WAITE. C. B.. on parallel passages in Mark and other
synoptics, 12-">: on authorship of epistles of John, 148.
WAKE, Archbishop, asserts that apostolic fathers were
inspired, 37.
WALKER, Dr. A., on adultresses in the genealogy of
Cia-ist. 390.
WAR, sanctioned bv the Bible, 356-360.
WARS OF THE LORD, book of the, 65.
WATER TURNED INTO BLOOD; into wine, 286, 287.
WATSON, Dr. J., frank expression of, 458.
WEBSTER, Noah, on biblical obscenity, 392.
WESLEY. Joim. on witchcraft. 371; on the liberty of
Christian soldiers, 389; on the American Revolution,
416.
Index. 489
WESTCOTT, Canon, on Justin Martyr's omission to quote
the gospels, 114; his admission that the writings of
the Apostolic fathers do not prove the existence of the
gospels, 111; on "substance" and "form" of the synop-
tics, 130; on the origin ©f John., 135; on date of II.
Peter, 147; on Hebrews, 157; oo carelessness of tran-
scribers, 167.
WHISTON, Dr., defense of apocryphal books by, 36; 91.
WHITE, A. D., on Johanuine authorship 0/ John, 135, 136.
WICLIFFE'S BIBLE, 43.
WINE, the intoxicating kind, manufactured by Christ. 397;
used by early Christians at the Lord's Supper, 399.
WITCHCRAFT, 370-373; belief in affirmed by Wesley,
Blackstone, and Hale, 371; numbers put to death for,
372.
WITHERSPOON, Rev. T., on slavery, 378.
WIVES, duties prescribed by Paul, 404; classed with
chattels, 405; captive, 406; compelled to suffer for
husbands, 407.
WIZARDS, existence of affirmed, 371.
WOMAN, creation of, 307; injustice to, 404-409; wrongs
inflicted on by Christianity, 407-409; Conway on, 407;
Gage on, 408; her proud boast, 409.
WORSHIP, freedom of denied by the Bible, 418.
WRIGHT, Rev. W., on biblical wine, 398.
ZACHARIAH, reign of, 215.
ZACHARIAS, sou of Barachias, the blood of, 122; an an-
achronism, 269.
ZEBEDEE, father of John, 132.
ZECHARIAH, 89; cited by Matthew, 90.
ZEDEKIAH, relation of to Jehoiachin, 208.
ZEND AVESTA, the Zoroastrian Bible, 8.
ZEPHANIAH, 89, 92.
ZELLER, I. Peter believed to be a Pauline document by,
146.
ZOOLOGY OF THE BIBLE, 281-283.
ZOROASTER, the Persian savior, 8.
ZUNZ, existence of Ezekiel denied by, 88.
ZWINGLE, Revelation rejected by," 36; Luther on Bible
Of, 171.
i?
anDfi
*/? 30910-131*1*'
ARY
I J 10 83460-0405
