Skip to main content


Full text of “The Bible : I. Authenticity. II. Credibility. III. Morality

See other formats



3  1404  00646  9354 



Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2013 


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good  reasons  why  the  Sunday  laws  should  be  repealed.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. 


62   Vesey  Street,  Sew  York 






'Somebody  ought  to  tell  the  truth  about  the  Bible. " 

— Ingersoll. 

New  York 


62  Vesey  Street 


In  memory  of 



Sarah  B.  Brunei*. 


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 

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 

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. 




Chapter  I. 

Sacred  Books  of  the  World,    . 


Chapter  II. 

The  Christian  Bible, 


Chapter  III. 

Formation  of  the  Canon, 


Chapter  IV. 

Different  Versions  of  the  Bible, 


Chapter  V. 

Authorship  and  Dates, 


Chapter  VI. 

The  Pentateuch, 


Chapter  VII. 

The  Prophets,         .... 


Chapter  VIII. 

The  Hagiographa, 


x  Contents. 

Chapter  IX. 
The  Four  Gospels,  .         .         .         .108 

Chapter  X. 
Acts,  Catholic  Epistles,  and  Revelation.       140 

Chapter  XL 
Pauline  Epistles, 152 


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 



Chapter  XIX. 

Paul  and  the  Apostles, 

.      247 

Chapter  XX. 

The  Bible  and 

Chapter  XXI. 

.      260 

The  Bible  and  Science, 

.      271 

Chapter  XXII. 


Chapter  XXIII. 

.      293 


Chapter  XXIV. 

.       306 

The  Bible  God 

,      .        .        .        . 

.      317 



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 


Arguments  Against  the  Divine  Origin  and 
3  in  Support  of  the  Human  Origin  of 
the  Bible, 433 

Index, 463 





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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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. 


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 



1  Samuel, 

2  Samuel, 
i  Kings, 
2  Kings, 

Old  testament. 

The  Law. 


The  Prophets. 











The  Christian   Bible. 






Song  of  Solomon, 





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. 







1  Corinthians, 

2  Corinthians, 

1  Thessalonians, 

2  Thessalonians, 

1  Timothy, 

2  Timothy, 

1  Peter, 

2  Peter, 

1  John, 

2  John, 

3  John, 

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 

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 

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  : 


Books  accepted  as  canonical  and  divine  by  all 

Jews  and  Christians. 

Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deute- 


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. 

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. 

Books  accepted  as  canonical  by  some  Jews,  and 
for  most  part  by  the  Greek  and  Roman 
Catholic  churches,  but  rejected  by  the  Prot- 

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- 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 

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- 

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 

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- 

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- 

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 

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 



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 

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- 

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 

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 


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. 






B.C.  1451 



<<        <( 



(<        tt 



It                tt 



It            tt 



"    1426 



"    1049 


"      (?) 

<<       (< 

1  Samuel 


<(        tt 

Authorship  and  Dates. 





2  Samuel 

Gad  <fe  Nathan 


\  1016 

1  Kings 




2  Kings 




1  Chronicles 




2  Chronicles 













Mordecai  (?) 



















S.  of  Solomon 






































































Hew  testament. 


















48  Authenticity  of  the  Bible. 
















1  Corinthians 




2  Corinthians 




















IThessalonians      " 



2Thessalonians     " 



1  Timothy 




2  Timothy 




















1  Peter 




2  Peter 




1  John 




2  John 




3  John 












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 

50  Authenticity  of  the  Bible. 


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 

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, 

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. 

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). 


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 

9.  "  They  [the  Israelites]  did  eat  manna  until 
they  came  unto  the  borders  of  Canaan"  (Ex. 
xvi,  35). 


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). 


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 

^  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. 

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, 

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 


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 

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 

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 
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- 

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 

"  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- 

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 

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. 


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- 


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, 

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. 


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 

"  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 

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- 

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 " 

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 


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 

2.  The  style  is  the  same  throughout  the  work. 

3.  Messianic  prophecies  abound  in  both  its 

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- 

3.  Many  of  its  events  occurred  af  wer  Isaiah's 

84  Authenticity  of  the  Bible. 

4.  Much  of  it  relates  to  the  Babylonian  cap- 

5.  It  records  both  the  name  and  the  deeds  of 

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- 

"  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. 


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- 


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" 

"  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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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, 

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- 

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 

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." 


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 

"  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 

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 

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 

io8         Authenticity  of  the  Bible. 


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- 

"  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 

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 

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- 

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- 

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 

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. 


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 

"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 

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 

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 

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. 


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 

"  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- 

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). 


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 

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." 


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 

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" 

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- 

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- 

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. 



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 

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 

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 

"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- 

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  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 

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 

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. 


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- 

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 

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- 

Pauline    Epistles.  159 


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- 

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. 



"  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 

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: 


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 

"  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 

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" 

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- 

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 

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 

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 

Old. — "  No  man,  when  he  hath  lighted  a 
candle,  putteth  it  in  a  secret  place"  (Luke  xi 

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 

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- 

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 


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: 

In  the  first  cosmogony  the  appellation  of 
Deity  is  uniformly  "  Elohim  "  (the  gods),  trans- 
lated "  God."  This  term  occurs  thirty-five 

In  the  second,  the  appellation  of  Deity  is 
uniformly  "Jehovah  (Yahweh)  Elohim,"  trans- 
lated "  Lord  God."  This  term  occurs  eleven 

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. 


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). 


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). 


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 


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). 


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.) 


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). 


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). 


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. 


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 


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). 


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 

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. 


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. 


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). 


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). 


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). 


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. 


According  to  the  first  the  Creator  is  an  opti- 
mist. He  views  all  his  works  and  declares  them 

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. 


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. 


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 

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. 


"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  " 


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 

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. 


"  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." 


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- 


"And  Arphaxad  begat  Salah  "  (Gen.  x,  24). 

"And  Arphaxad  begat  Shelah "  (1  Chron.  i, 

"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. 


"  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?" 

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. 


"  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, 

"  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. 


"  And  Abram  was  four  score  and  six  years  old 
when  Hagar  bare  Ishmael  to  Abram"  (Gen.  xvi, 

"  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" 


"  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. 


"  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? 

"  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. 


"  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). 


"  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). 


"  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. 


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. 


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  : 


Was  David  the  seventh  or  the  eighth  son  of 

"  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). 


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). 


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, 

"  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). 


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  ? 


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). 

"Was    it   forty  thousand   horsemen  or    forty 

The  Jewish  Kings.  201 

thousand  footmen  that  David  slew  of  the  Syri- 

"  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). 


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, 


"And  Satan  stood  up  against  Israel,  and  pro- 
voked David  to  number  Israel "  (1  Chron. 
xxi,  1). 


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). 


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). 


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). 

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). 


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). 


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. 


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). 

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). 


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). 

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. 


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). 


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. 


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, 

From  the  thirty-first  to  the  thirty-eighth  year 
of  Asa's  reign  Omri  is  said  to  have  reigned 
twelve  years. 


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). 


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. 


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)- 


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). 


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). 

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). 

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), 

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). 

What  relation  did  Zedekiah,  the  last  of  the 
Jewish  kings,  bear  to  Jehoiachin,  his  predeces- 

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. 


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- 

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" 

"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  " 

"  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  II., 



Zachariah  and  Shallum,      one 














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? 

"  And  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Jeroboam  king 
of  Israel  reigned  Asa  over  Judah"  (1  Kings  xv, 

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. 


"  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 


"  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. 


"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. 


"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. 


"  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. 

"  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. 


"  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. 


"  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. 


"  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. 

"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. 


"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. 


"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. 

"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. 


"  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. 


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 

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 



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 

"  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 : 


"  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). 


"  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). 


"  The  children  of  Zattu,  nine  hundred  forty  and 
five"  (Ez.  ii,  8). 

"  The  children  of  Zattu,  eight  hundred  forty  and 
five  "  (Neh.  vii,  13). 


"The  children  of  Bani,  six  hundred  forty  and 
two"  (Ez.  ii,  10). 

"The  children  of  Binnui,  six  hundred  forty 
and  eight  "  (Neh.  vii,  15). 


"  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). 


"  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). 


"  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). 


"  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). 

"  The  children  of  Adin,  four  hundred  fifty  and 
/owr"(Ez..ii,  15). 

"  The  children  of  Adin,  six  hundred  fifty  and 
five"  (Neh.  vii,  20). 


"  The  children  of  Bezai,  three  hundred  twenty 
and  three  "  (Ez.  ii,  17). 

"  The  children  of  Bezai,  three  hundred  twenty 
and  four  "  (Neh.  vii,  23). 

"  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). 


"  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). 


"  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). 

"  The  children  of  Magbish,  a  hundred  fifty 
and  six  "  (Ez.  ii,  30). 

[This  family  is  omitted  from  Nehemiah's  list.] 


"  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). 


"  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 


"  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). 

"  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). 

"  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). 


"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. 



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 


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 

238  Credibility  of  the  Bible. 


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 : 


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. 


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). 


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 


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). 


Whom  did  Jesus  call  from  the  receipt  of  cus- 

"  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). 


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). 

What  did  Jesus'  neighbors  say  of  him? 
"  Is  not  this  the  carpenter  ?"  (Mark  vi,  3). 
"  Is  not  this  the  carpenter's  son?"  (Matt,  xiii, 


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). 


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, 

"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). 

What  was  Jesus'  prediction  regarding  Peter's 

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). 


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). 


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). 


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). 


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, 

"  This  is  Jesus  the  King  of  the  Jews  "  (Matt, 
xxvii,  37). 

"  Jesus  of  Nazareth  the  King  of  the  Jews " 
(John  xix,  19). 


Was  it  lawful  for  the  Jews  to  put  Jesus  to 

"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). 


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). 

At  what  time  in  the  morning  did  they  visit  the 

"At  the  rising  of  the  sun  "  (Mark  xvi,  2). 
"  When  it  was  yet  dark"  (John  xx,  1). 


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). 

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, 

"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 


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. 


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). 


The  conversion  of  Paul  is  described  as  fol- 

"  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. 


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). 

"  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). 


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). 


Paul  declares  that  his  mission  was  to  the 
Gentiles  alone. 

"I  am  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  "  (Rom.  xi 

•'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. 


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 

"  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). 


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 

"  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). 


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, 


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). 


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). 


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). 


"  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 


The  following  is  an  example  of  Paul's  reason- 

"  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. 


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 

"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- 

"  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). 


The  following  words  are  ascribed  to  Jesus  by 

"  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. 


"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). 

"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. 

"  And  Enoch  also,  the  seventh  from  Adam, 
prophesied  of  these,  saying,  Behold,  the  Lord 
cometh  with  ten  thousand  of  his  saints  "  (Jude 

Jude's  scriptural  authority  is  an  apocryphal 

Genesis,  Chronicles,  and  Luke  all  agree  that 
Enoch  was  not  the  seventh,  but  the  sixth  from 

"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" 

"  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). 


"  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). 

"  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- 

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). 


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). 


"  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. 

260  Credibility  of  the  Bible. 


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. 


"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. 


"  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 


"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- 

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. 


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. 


"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, 

"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 ! 


"  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. 


"  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 


"  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: 

"  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. 


"  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 

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. 


"  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. 


"  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. 

"  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 

"  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, 

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 


"  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. 


"  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 

"  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." 


"  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 

"  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. 


"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 

"  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. 


"  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 

"  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. 


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 

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 

"  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." 


"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, 

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. 


"  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). 


"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 

"  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." 


"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 

"  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,  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- 

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 


"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 

The  more  important  of  these  so-called  proph- 
ecies will  now  be  examined. 


"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. 


"  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> 


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- 


"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 


"  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. 


"  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, 

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). 


"  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). 


"  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). 


"  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. 


"  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." 


"  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- 

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." 


"  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. 


"  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. 


"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 


"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. 


"  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, 

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. 


"  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 

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 

"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. 


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 

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. 


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. 


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- 

CDc  Waters  Ulcrc  Divided. 


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 ! ! ! 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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\$$. 


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. 


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, 

Cbc  Boy  Sneezed. 


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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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. 


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,  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, 

I  know  that  thou  canst  do  everything  (Job 
xlii,  2). 

There  is  nothing  too  hard  for  thee  (Jer.  xxxii, 

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, 

The  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  in  every  place  (Prov- 
xv,  3). 

He  knoweth  the  secrets  of  the  heart  (Ps.  xliv, 

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, 

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, 

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, 


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, 

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 

He  shall  dwell  between  his  [God's]  shoulders 
(Deut.  xxxiii,  12). 

Thou  [God]  hast  a  mighty  arm  (Ps.  Ixxxix, 

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, 

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, 

Darkness  was  under  his  [God's]  feet  (Ps.  xviii, 

The  mind  of  the  Lord  (Lev.  xxiv,  12). 

The  Bible  God.  323 

The  breath  of  his  [God's]  nostrils  (2  Sam.  xxii, 

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, 

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, 

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, 

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. 



THE    BIBLE     NOT    A     MORAL 

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. 


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." 


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 



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- 

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 

"  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- 

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 

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- 

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. 


I  refuse  to  accept  the  Bible  as  a  moral  guide, 
because  it  sanctions  cheating  and  the  use  of 
dishonorable  methods  in  obtaining  wealth  and 

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 

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 


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 

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 



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 

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  !" 



I  refuse  to  accept  the  Bible  as  a  moral  guide 
because  it  sanctions  wars  of  conquest  and  ex- 

"  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, 

"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, 

Moses  dies,  and  Joshua  next  leads  Jehovah's 

"  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 



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 

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 

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 

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. 


I  refuse  to  accept  the  Bible  as  a  moral  guide 
because  it  teaches  the  horrible  custom  of  can- 

"  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, 

"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  !'  " 


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- 

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 

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, 



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 

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, 

"  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 

"  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 ! 


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 

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 

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- 


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- 

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- 

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. 



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 

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. 


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- 

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. 




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, 

"  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 

"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). 


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 

"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- 

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- 


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, 

"  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. 


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. 

"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. 



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- 

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. 

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 

"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- 

"  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- 

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 

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 



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 

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). 


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- 

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 


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. 



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 

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- 

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- 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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. 


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. 



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. 


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, 

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," 

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. 


ANTIOCH,  disciples  first  called  Christians  at,  247. 

APOCALYPSE,  the,   149ff;  see  REVELATION. 

APOCHRYPHAL  BOOKS,  15-20;  how  known,  163. 



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. 


ARK,  animals  taken  into  by  Noah.  191,  192;  landing  of, 

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. 


ASIA,  source  of  religions,  5. 

ASTRAL   WORSHIP,    practiced   bv   the   Jews,   65. 


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. 


BAASHA,  time  of  his  death,  206. 

BABEL,  absurd  story  of,  284;  contradicted,  285;  289. 

BABYLON,  Isaiah's  false  prophecy  concerning,  295. 


BANDITS,  pious  custom  of,  350. 


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. 


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. 


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. 



BOTANY,   OF  THE   BIBLE.  279-281. 

BRADLAUGH,  C,  on  slavery  in  England,  377. 



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. 


CAMPBELL.  Rev.  Dr.,  on  lost  books,  23. 

CAMPBELL,  Rev.  A.,  on  slavery.  377. 

CANAAN,  conquest  of,  58;  no  Hebrews  in,  263. 


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. 


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. 



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, 

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, 

CIRCUMCISION,  performed  by  Paul,  257. 

CLARKSON,  his  abolition  bill.  377. 



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- 

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. 


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. 


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; 

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. 


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, 

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, 

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. 

DISCREPANCY,  numerical,  290. 
DIVINITY.  Horn's  test  of,  164. 
DIVORCE,  biblical  law  of,  406,  407. 
DODWELL,  Dr.,  his  admission  as  to  the  New  Testament, 

DOUGLASS,  F.,  on  religious  sanction  for  cruelty  to  slaves, 

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, 

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, 

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, 

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. 

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. 


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, 

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, 

GREGORY  THE  GREAT,  epistle  to  Laodiceans  accepted 

by,  35. 
GROTIUS,  Jude,  doubted  by,  145;  on  II.  Peter,  147. 

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, 


HARLOTS,  mother  of  identified  by  her  daughters,  303. 
HEART,   regarded   by   Jesus   as  the   seat   of   intelligence, 

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, 

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, 

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, 

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. 


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. 




INTERPOLATIONS,    how    made,    166. 


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, 

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, 

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, 

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, 

JEHOVAH,  Elohim,  181. 


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 



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, 

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. 


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  REVELATOR;  Paul  denounced  as  a  liar  by, 

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. 

KING,  the  five,  7. 
KINGS,  books  of,  properly  one  with  Samuel,  81;    mixture 

of  history  and  fiction,  by  various  authors,  82. 
KINGS,  the  Jewish,  many  contradictions  concerning,  198- 

KIRJATH-ARBA,  changed  to  Hebron,  59. 
KNOWLEDGE,  opposed  by  the  Bible  and  the  clergy,  401- 

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. 



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, 

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, 


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, 

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. 


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. 


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. 


MENU,  Institutes  of,  7. 

MEREDITH,  on  cannibalism  of  earlv  Christians,  369. 



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. 


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, 

MORMON,  book  of,  believed  to  be  a  part  of  God's  word,  37. 


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. 



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, 

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. 


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, 


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. 



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. 


PARTURITION,  pains  of  attributed  to  a  curse,  286. 

PASSOVER,  a  contradiction  as  to  Jesus'  observance  of, 

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   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, 

PETER,  epistles  of,  144;  similarity  to  Jude;  date,  145;  a 
Pauline  document,  146;  II.  Peter  a  forgery,  146;  origi- 
nal title,  147. 


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. 




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- 


QUAILS,  308. 



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. 



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. 



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, 


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? 

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. 

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. 
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, 

THIRLWALL,  Bishop,  regarding  the  composition  of  Luke, 

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. 



TRENT,  council  of,  32. 
TRINITY,  passage  supporting  it  a  forgery,  256;  Jefferson 

on,  289. 
TWELVE  APOSTLES,  gospel  of,  127. 
TYCHICUS,  Philemon  sent  to,  154. 
TYNDALL,  Prof.  J.,  on  apostolic  forgeries,  158;    on  origin 

of  morality,  428. 
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. 

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, 

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, 


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. 


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, 

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, 

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. 



*/?   30910-131*1*' 

I  J  10    83460-0405 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *