I. The First Chapter of the Bible
|MUCH depends upon what impression the first chapter produces upon our
minds. If we find the statements therein contained accurate, precise,
reasonable, original, of course, that fact will dispose us very
favorably toward the remainder of the book; but if, on the other hand,
the first chapter should appear to us as fantastical, fictitious,
legendary, contradictory, grotesque--made up of gossip borrowed from
here and there--naturally, we will be prejudiced against the chapters
which follow. If the first chapter is not true, the credit of the book
will certainly suffer. We may read the rest of the book as literature,
or from curiosity, but as the word of God--no!
Curious, is it not, that there is not a Christian scholar, or a
university man, who does not admit that the opening chapter of the bible
is legendary, that is to say, not true. Sir Oliver Lodge, who is one of
the champions of the church, in his reply to Professor Haeckel, refers
to the first chapter as "the old Genesis legend." Canon Farrar, who
was a shining light in the Anglican church, calls this same chapter
an allegory, that is to say, a fable. And the scholarly authors of
the Encyclopedia Biblica do not hesitate to deal with the story of
the creation in Genesis as mere gossip, borrowed from Assyrian and
Babylonian sources.
There is hardly a single educated Christian who accepts the first
chapter of the bible as anything more than tradition or fiction.
The dean of the University of Chicago, who is a Baptist clergyman,
recently said this in public print: "It is irreligious to teach that the
world was made in six days, when we know that it was not." But the first
chapter of the bible teaches that untruth, and for two thousand years
the churches, according to this Christian professor, have taught what
is not true. In the Ten Commandments, supposed to have been given by God
himself, and which are still read in all the churches, we are ordered to
keep the seventh day holy, "for in six days the Lord made the heaven and
the earth, etc." Yet, this Christian professor says this is not true.
What is still more puzzling is that this same professor who condemns
the first chapter as erroneous, accepts the second, or the third, or
the tenth, as the word of God! Even more astonishing than this is the
conduct of the religious teachers who from Monday to Saturday believe
in the scientific doctrine of evolution, but on Sunday repeat with the
_Westminster Catechism_ that "In six days the Lord made the heaven and
the earth." What shall we think of a religion that can make people so
callous as that?
Of course, a book or a man may make a number of statements of which some
are true and some are not, but the man or the book that makes statements
of which some are true and some false ceases to be different from any
other book or man. The position of the orthodox preachers, that the
bible is infallible from cover to cover, is very much more consistent
than the position of the Christian professor we have quoted, who says
that the first chapter of the bible is not the word of God, but the
second or the fifth is. No. If the first chapter of your "holy" book is
not divine, the whole book is human.
But to state, as these Christian scholars do, that what the bible says
in its first chapter is not true, is to make a very serious admission.
If Genesis is a legend, Jesus might be a legend, too, for both Genesis
and Jesus are in the same "holy" book. If the bible is unreliable when
it says the world was created, it may be equally unreliable when it says
Christ was incarnated. If it is not true that the universe was made in
six days, it may not be true either that Christ rose from the grave. Our
evidence for either statement is the bible. If the story of the fall of
man is a myth, the story of the "Lamb of God taking away the sins of
the world," may also be a myth. You can not part with Genesis and
keep Jesus. The moment a single stone is removed from the structure of
super-naturalism, the safety of the whole building is threatened. The
tragedy of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is inseparably related to
the tragedy of a dying god on Calvary. Christ is supposed to have shed
his blood because Adam's sin had brought a curse upon the whole human
race; and if Adam is a myth, what becomes of Christ?
The First Verse of the Bible
|BUT let us read the first verse of the first chapter:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Indeed! The text could not be more childish if it read: "In the
beginning God created the heaven and the moon." Is not the moon, or
the earth, a very small part of "the heaven" and included therein? Why
separate the earth, or the moon, from the rest of the universe? How
would it sound to say: "In the beginning God created the earth and the
Sandwich Islands?" or "the earth and a grain of sand"? But our next
comment will show that if the writer of this first verse of the
first chapter of the bible was pitiably ignorant of his subject, the
translator of it was even worse than ignorant--he was, I am sorry to
say, also a falsifier.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
I hold my breath! The very first verse shows deliberate manipulation and
tampering with the text. The Hebrew word which has been rendered into
English as "God," is "Elohim," which means gods, not God. The singular
of Elohim is Eloah--the dreaded one. But the Hebrew text reads Elohim,
not Eloah, that is to say, the plural and not the singular form is used.
Had the translators of the bible been free from sectarian prejudices,
the first verse in the bible would have read: "In beginning (not in
the beginning) the gods created the heaven and the earth." But the
priesthood, which had the bible in its custody, desired to prove by it
the dogma of monotheism. Yet, the first verse of the first chapter
of the bible proved polytheism--more than one god. Whereupon, the
translators quietly dropped the letter "s" from the word gods, and made
it to read God, thereby suppressing the fact that the supposed inspired
writer of the opening chapter of the book was a Pagan, with more gods
than the translators themselves believed in. It does not require much
effort to see what the consequences would have been had the first verse
of the bible been truthfully rendered into the modern tongues. "In
beginning the gods created the heaven and the earth" might have
relegated the bible to the limbo of other mythological compositions.
"The gods" would have made the exclusiveness of Christianity or Judaism
impossible. The history of European religions would have been different
had not that one letter "s" in the first verse of the first chapter of
the bible, and the very first time the deity is mentioned, been killed
by the translators. Of course, finding manipulation in the very first
verse, we will begin to suspect that other texts, too, have been
"doctored."
The very name of the book--Holy Bible--shows manipulation. By what, or
by whose authority is the book called "holy"? It is nowhere stated
in any of the manuscripts translated that the writings are "holy."
The words Holy Bible, then, represent nothing more than the opinion
or guess, or, at best, the judgment, of the English translators of the
book.
But there is a more serious example of manipulation on the title-page of
the Bible. Instead of admitting that the translation has been made from
Hebrew and Greek copies, not originals, for there are no originals (and,
therefore, there is no way of telling how true the copies are, since
they can not be compared with the originals), the words
_Translated out of the original Greek_ is inserted on the title-page
of the New Testament. This, I am compelled to say, is an indefensible
misstatement. The truth is that the originals, if they ever existed, are
lost. The bible as we have it is not quite two hundred and fifty years
old, and the most ancient manuscript in existence of the Old Testament
is not a thousand years old. This is the _Codex Petropolitanus_, which
is in the library of St. Petersburg. But where are the originals?
Why were they lost? Why were they "inspired" if they were not to be
preserved? But how can men who do not hesitate to state in print that
they possess the "original Greek" of the New Testament when they do not
and never have possessed it, pose as the moral teachers of the world? If
the translators of the bible wished to confine themselves to the truth,
instead of saying "Translated out of the original Greek, which is not
so, they would have said this on the title-page of their work:=
````A Collection of Writings
```Of Unknown Date and Authorship,
````Rendered Into English
``From Supposed Copies of Supposed Originals
````Unfortunately Lost.=
Rev. T. K. Cheyne, who is one of the contributors to the most scholarly
work recently produced by churchmen, * gives a number of instances of
deliberate manipulation of bible texts by the translators. "The Old
Testament," he writes, "is not altogether in its original form; it has
undergone not merely corruption, but editorial manipulation. This is
plainer in some books than in others; but nowhere, perhaps, is it more
manifest than in the Psalter." Two of his examples of mistranslation are
from the twenty-ninth psalm:
* The Encyclopedia Biblica.
Authorized Version. Literal Translation.
1. Give thanks unto the Ascribe unto Yahwe, O ye
Lord, O ye mighty, give unto sons of Jerahmeel,
the Lord glory and strength. Ascribe unto Yahwe glory
2. Give unto the Lord the and strength.
glory due unto his name; Ascribe glory, O ye Ish-
worship the Lord in the maelites, unto Yahwe,
beauty of holiness. Worship Yahwe, Rehoboth
and Cush.
Compare also the first verse of the one hundred
and thirty-ninth psalm with its literal translation as
given by Doctor Cheyne :
Authorized Version. Literal Translation.
1. O Lord thou hast O Yahwe ! thou hast rooted
searched me, and known me. up Zarephath,
2. Thou knowest my It is thou that hast cut
down-sitting and mine upris- down Maacath;
ing, thou understandest my Ashhur and Arabia thou
thoughts afar off. hast scattered.
All Jerahmeel thou hast
subdued.
But one of the worst cases of tampering with "inspired" texts is to be
found in the New Testament. For nearly two thousand years the seventh
verse of the fifth chapter of the first epistle of St. John has been
saying this: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."
You may look high and low for that text in the Revised Version, but you
will not be able to find it there. That text has slipped out of, or has
been spirited away from, the bible, _revised_. After twenty centuries
of time, the forgery blushes to look criticism in the face. The smuggled
text for the trinity is still in the King James' bible, but the best
scholarship of the church, at least, is ashamed of it, and has dropped
it. What confidence can be placed upon men who wait for twenty hundred
years before they will admit that what the Rationalist has been saying
right along about the bible being a medley (to which from time to time
the sects made such additions as suited their interests or from which
they dropped whatever was prejudicial to their claims) is really true.
But let us return to the first verse of the bible: It is evident that
the writer of that verse believed in more than one god. This is shown by
other references to the subject in the same chapter. He makes Elohim, or
the gods, say, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Still
another text reads: "Behold the man has become as one of us," which is
also in keeping with the "gods" who created the heaven and the earth.
In reply to this criticism, it has been argued that the "we" or the
"us" and the "our" in this part of the bible prove the doctrine of the
trinity. The Catholic bible, in a footnote, plainly says so. Evidently,
John Milton was of the same opinion, for in Paradise Lost he says:=
```... Therefore the omnipotent
```Eternal father--thus to his Son audibly spake:
```Let us make now man in our image... *=
* Paradise Lost, book VII.
But why should the words "us" and "our" prove that there are only three
persons in the Godhead? Why may not "we" mean four, or forty? Why only
three? It is really childish to see in "gods," or in "we," a proof of
only three gods, and no more.
Besides, the members of the trinity are all supposed to belong to the
male sex; but the "gods" in Genesis say that they created man in their
image, "male and female," the implication being that there were female
as well as male gods in the "we" of the first chapter of the bible. This
argument failing, the defenders of the bible make a second attempt to
explain away the letter "s" in gods: The writer of the first chapter
of the bible, they argue, wrote the plural form out of respect to the
deity. He used the "royal style" of speaking to express his veneration.
But if "gods" in the plural is the respectful title of the deity, why
did the translators use the disrespectful singular in English? Why did
they drop the plural for the singular in the translation? Or is it only
in Hebrew that the "royal style" must be observed? And is it conceivable
that a God who elsewhere in the bible says "I"--"I am a jealous God,"
and "I only am God," and "there is none other beside me"--would here,
and in the very first chapter, and on a most important subject, say
"_we_ gods" created "the heaven and the earth"?
There is no better way to prove the weakness of a cause than by trying
to uphold it by equivocal arguments. Men would never be arguing that
"we" means the trinity, or that it is the "royal style," etc., if
they had more cogent arguments to advance. It is only when we are hard
pressed that we resort to sophistry.
But let us read the second verse:
_The earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of
the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters._
Honestly, it is impossible to get any intelligible meaning out of such
a sentence. The earth was without _form?_ Was not the form of our globe
the same in the beginning as it is now? Can there be anything without a
form of some kind? The revisers of the authorized version of the bible,
wishing to remedy this ignorant statement, have dropped the word form,
and substituted in its place the word waste: "The earth was waste and
void." But "waste" and "void" mean practically the same thing. The
revisers have simply refused to translate the word which means "without
form." Of course, the revised version is not read in all the churches;
and in the authorized version, "the earth is without form." This
meaningless text has been made to support the idea that at one time
there was only chaos, out of which the creator evolved cosmos. Science,
however, has shown that nature was never in a state of chaos. The laws
of matter are the same to-day, and will be the same to-morrow--and they
have never been different. The law of gravitation, for instance, was as
potent and inevitable when the earth was younger as it is now. There was
just as much order, or to put it differently, nature was as orderly a
billion years ago as she is to-day. Everything happened according to
the inherent properties of matter and force then, as now, and as it
will happen to-morrow and forever. Chaos, then, is a figment of the
theological mind. To provide God with something to do, a chaos was
invented, which had to be tamed into a cosmos to keep the deity
occupied.
But the text proceeds to inform us that "darkness was upon the face of
the deep." This can not mean that the land itself was in the light;
it must mean that the entire earth, land and sea, were wrapped up in
darkness. All we have, then, in the beginning, is _darkness_, and God's
spirit moving about in the darkness. What a beginning! If God is light,
as we are told elsewhere in the bible, how could there be darkness where
he lived and moved about? God in the dark! or, God and the darkness! The
unknown! It is this Darkness which men have called God! And is it not
significant that because of this early association with darkness,
the gods have always preferred it to the light. In First Kings, sixth
chapter, fourth verse, we read that Solomon in building his temple "made
windows of narrow lights." The house was meant to be the dwelling place
of God, and care was taken to shut out the light, except what slipped in
through narrow windows. Modern church buildings show the same prejudice
against the light. God feels at home in the darkness! That was his first
home--when he moved about in the universal night. It is also plainly
stated in the bible that God prefers darkness for his abode.
_The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness._ *
* I Kings viii, 12.
God! Darkness! They are joined together and no man has ever been able to
put them asunder.
But let us read on:
_And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the
light, that it was good._
Was that the first time the deity saw the light? Did he not know before
this that the light was good? If he really had been moving over the
face of the waters in total darkness for _oons_, who could blame him for
calling the light good? After he saw that the light was good, he divided
it from the darkness, and he called the light day, and the darkness he
called night, "and the evening and the morning were the first day." We
have now day and night--evening and morning; but we have as yet no
sun. Indeed, the sun is not created until the fourth day. How could
there be light without the sun? And why create a sun if light could be
had without it? The earth is in darkness or in the light according to
its relative position to the sun. By its revolution on its axis
the earth presents an ever shifting surface to the sun. The earth's
movements are caused by two contrary forces, the centripetal and the
centrifugal--the one tossing the earth like a ball into infinite space,
and the other tugging it toward the sun. The equilibrium of these forces
marks the diurnal course of the earth. Without the sun there would be
no revolution of the earth, and if the earth stood still, there could be
neither evening nor morning. And yet this verse states there was day and
night, morning and evening, before there was any sun. The idea that the
world is a progressive body, with the reins in the grip of those two
forces, the centrifugal and the centripetal, whipping her on, and yet
never letting her for a moment, even, to step out of the celestial
race-course, never entered the puny and prosaic minds of myth-makers.
Is there any reason why we should accept so impossible an explanation of
the origin of the universe, or of the relation of the earth to the sun,
when we have within our reach the stupendous revelations of science?
The creation of the sun, like the creation of the woman, seems to have
been an afterthought. Not only was there both light and darkness--a day
and a night--before there was any sun, but the sunless light was also
strong enough to produce vegetation, for the bible states that herbs and
trees appeared and flourished on the third day; that is to say,
vegetation arrived twenty-four hours before the sun. Not only does the
bible speak of the stars as if they were thrown in, "He made the stars
also," but the sun seems to have been thrown in, too--just as a grocer
weighing beans tosses into the already loaded scales a few additional
ones.
"The sun was made to give light upon the earth," say the Scriptures. But
the earth was already lit up by the "Let there be light, and there was
light," of the deity. The grass grew and the trees bore fruit after
their kind without any help whatever from the sun. But an excuse must be
provided for the existence of the sun: it was made "to give light upon
the earth." It never occurred to the infallible writer that the sun,
being one million five hundred thousand times bigger than the earth,
would give more light than the earth could use. What would we say to
the wisdom of creating a million million candle-power electric flame to
light a molecule of dust? Yet, not only the sun which is fifteen hundred
thousand times bigger than ourselves, but also the stars which are many
times bigger than the sun, and of which there are an infinite number,
were all created to dance attendance on this tiny dewdrop of a world,
trembling in infinite space. The man who originated this gossip about
sun and stars thought the firmament was a solid roof, just about so
large and so far from the earth. It was made of hammered plate, and was
equipped with windows which opened and shut, to let out or to stop
the rain. The stars, sun and moon were fastened to this upper roof and
worked to and fro "like sliding panels." Is it possible that people find
this infantile story of earth and sky inspiring? And is it not a pity
that we Americans, in this twentieth century, lack both the courage and
the frankness to speak our minds freely on the bible? If this Asiatic
book has done no other harm than to seal the lips of science from fear,
it has done enough to deserve all the criticisms that Rationalism has
leveled against it.
Theologians Discover That Six Days Means Six Periods
|THE defenders of the first chapter of the bible, in their attempt to
reconcile theology with science, have advanced the theory that the "six
days" of creation, instead of meaning six natural days of twenty-four
hours, means six indefinite periods of time. The object of this
explanation is to give the deity sufficient time to build his universe
in, and so bring the story of theology and science into something like
harmony. Of course, "six" meant six, and "days" meant days for nearly
two thousand years, and there was no idea of ever changing the meaning
of these words until the voice of Charles Darwin was heard in the
world. Then in haste the clergy, too, made a "great" discovery. Darwin
discovered the law of evolution; the clergy discovered that "six days"
in the bible means six _oons_, or eras of large proportions.
There is a semblance of truth in this contention of the theologians.
When, for example, we say in Washington's day, we mean, the century, or
the times Washington lived in. Or when we say "in the day of the Lord"
we do not mean a day of twenty-four hours, but a long and indefinite
period of time. But this defense breaks down completely when it is
remembered that the bible positively states the _number_ of days
required to make the world in. One day of indefinite duration would have
been enough if time were what God needed. Why "six" indefinite times?
The "six" before the word days is unanswerable proof that the "inspired"
writer meant just six days and nothing more. When the number of days
required for any purpose is stated, "days" can only mean one thing. If
we say Washington crossed the Delaware and drove the English out of the
State in "six days," there is absolutely no way of making the "six
days" mean anything else than six days. The number "six" is fatal to the
theological theory that days means eras. God was for forty days on Mount
Sinai; Jesus was in the wilderness for forty days; and he remained with
his disciples for forty days after his resurrection. If forty days means
forty days, six days can mean six indefinite periods of time only when
there is no other way of saving the creed.
Still another proof that the bible writers believed the universe was
called into existence in six natural days, is their phrase, "and the
evening and the morning were the first day," and "the evening and the
morning were the second day," and so on to the end of the week. We do
not need an evening and a morning to complete an indefinite era. And the
seventh day on which, in imitation of the Lord, we are supposed to rest
from our labors--is that, too, an indefinite period of time? Moreover,
to intimate that six days were not enough for an almighty god to create
the universe in would be nothing less than skepticism. It is expressly
stated in the bible that nothing "is too hard" for God; why, then, are
not six days of twenty-four hours enough? They _were_ enough, before
Darwin. To extend the six days into six periods is to make terms with
science, and when one begins to do that one has already lost his faith.
In the bible of India, God only _thought_ of creating a world, and
behold the world was. That way of creating is more becoming to a god.
He, who could create out of nothing, could create also without time. The
Hindu god is bigger than the Hebrew. The former only thinks the world
into being. The latter needs six eras, or indefinite time, for the same
piece of work. It is the Hindu who has faith.
Let me explain: If I were asked, for example, to tell the time according
to my watch, there is only one answer I could make, if I wished to tell
the truth. I am limited to one answer--one only. But if I did not care
to tell the time as I have it, there are a hundred things I could say
instead. A man can say many things that are not true, but only one thing
can he say if he wishes to answer a question honestly. The theologians
do not seem to want to tell the truth about the bible; hence they have
a hundred other things to say. There is no end to the dodges,
excuses, apologies, sophisms--the allegorical, metaphorical, spiritual
interpretations--they can resort to to avoid giving the one true answer
about the bible.
To the scientist "six days" means six days; to the theologian they mean
whatever the interests of his creed require them to mean. They may mean
one thing to-day and another to-morrow. If the theologian is addressing
missionary converts, "six days" means six days, and if he is addressing
scientists, he may make the "six days" mean six very long periods--as
long as his hearers desire. The first and last duty of the theologian
is to save his creed. He will tell the truth when it helps his creed;
he will suppress the truth when he thinks it will hurt his creed. He was
not ordained to be loyal to the truth; he was ordained to stand up for
the creed. "An oath, an oath, I have an oath in heaven," cried Shylock,
when he was asked to listen to the voice of humanity. Likewise, when
Reason appeals to the clergyman to tell the truth about the bible, he
answers: "An oath, an oath, I have taken an oath to defend the creed.
Shall I lay perjury to my soul?"
But Genesis is as unreliable on the question of the age of the earth as
it is on the way it came into existence. While it is not stated in the
bible just how old the earth is, by comparing and computing the various
dates it gives the precise biblical age of the earth may be arrived at.
According to the chronology of the bible, the earth is something near
six thousand years old. Of course, it may be that "years" in the bible
no more means years than "days" means days, but if they do, then the
bible is wrong again. It is now generally admitted by scientists that
the age of our planet runs into the millions. There is not a single
scholar who accepts the bible chronology seriously. According to Darwin,
who weighs his statements before he makes them, two hundred millions of
years would hardly be enough to bring about the multifarious forms of
life which now exist on the earth.
Historians have discovered traces of a civilization on the banks of the
Nile long before the mythical Adam opened his eyes in Eden. Egypt was
in blossom long before the forbidden tree was planted in paradise, and
archeology has proved the existence of man on this planet myriads of
years before Egypt reared her pyramids, or Athens her Parthenon. Out
of the caves of Germany, England and France have been dug the bones of
primitive man who saw the light of the sun and heard the swing of the
sea nearly two hundred and fifty thousand years ago. In a publication of
the Smithsonian. Institution, issued and paid for by the United States
Government, it is stated that there is enough proof to make the age
of the earth at least seventy millions of years. Every day, except on
Sunday, and everywhere, except in church, the United States affixes its
official seal, and gives full approval, to the teachings of science; but
on Sunday, and in church, the same United States officially bows down
and worships as the Word of God a book that makes all science a heresy
and a blasphemy. And we wonder that there is so much false profession in
the land!
Mr. Gladstone, a few years ago, tried to help the theologians defend
Genesis against the onslaughts of Darwinism. It was the object of his
encounter with Huxley to show that the bible account of creation was
as consistent with the known facts as the theory of evolution. In fact,
Genesis, according to Gladstone, was a sort of introduction to Darwin's
_Origin of Species_. In his admirable reply to Gladstone, Professor
Huxley gives the bible version of the origin of life and the world to
show the irreconcilable difference between revelation and science. Says
Professor Huxley:
_The bible teaches that this visible universe of ours came into
existence at no great distance of time from the present, and that
the parts of which it is composed made their appearance in a certain
definite order, in the space of six natural days, in such a manner
that on the first of these days light appeared; that on the second the
firmament or sky separated the waters above from the waters beneath the
firmament; that on the third day the waters drew away from the dry land,
and upon it a varied vegetable life, similar to that which now
exists, made its appearance; that the fourth day was signalized by the
apparition of the sun, the stars, the moon and the planets; that on
the fifth day aquatic animals originated within the waters; that on the
sixth day the earth gave rise to our four-footed terrestial creatures,
and to all variations of terrestial animals except birds, which had
appeared on the preceding day; and, finally, that man appeared upon the
earth, and the emergence of the universe from chaos was finished._
Continuing, Professor Huxley shows how the theologians try to wiggle out
of all that this implies by quietly changing the natural meaning of the
words used by the bible writers. He says:
_If we are to listen to many expositors of no mean authority, we must
believe that what seems so clearly defined in Genesis--as if very great
pains had been taken that there should be no possibility of mistake--is
not the meaning of the text at all. The account is divided into periods
that we may make just as long or as short as convenience requires. We
are also to understand that it is consistent with the original text to
believe that the most complex plants and animals may have been
evolved by natural processes, lasting for millions of years, out of
structureless rudiments. A person who is not a Hebrew scholar can only
stand aside and admire the marvelous flexibility of a language which
admits of such diverse interpretations._ *
* Controverted Questions, page 100.
The Great Tragedy
|BUT it is when we come to read the bible story of the creation of man
that its unreliability becomes more manifest than ever. The story
of Adam and Eve seems to have been lifted bodily out of some foreign
document. This is evident from the fact that it is never referred to
again throughout the Old Testament. When the Jews were carried into
captivity they became familiar with the Babylonian legend of creation,
its Garden of Eden, the serpent, the forbidden tree, the fall of man,
etc. The name of the first man in the Babylonian story was _Adami_.
The belief that man was formed out of the earth is very ancient. Men saw
dead bodies return to dust, and, naturally enough, they inferred from it
that man was made out of the dust of the earth.
In the Jewish story, as related in the second chapter of Genesis, the
first man was a bachelor, and if he had liked that sort of life, woman,
in all probability, would never have been created. It is suggested
in the story that God asked Adam to choose a companion from among the
animals, which were made to pass before him, that he might name them,
and if possible select from among them a companion for himself:
_And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to
every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an helpmeet
for him._ *
Adam was lonely:
_And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept:
and he took one of his ribs... and the rib which the Lord God had taken
from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man._ **
* Genesis ii, 20.
** Ibid. 21-22.
The story of the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, on
which the whole theological system of the churches is built, is so crude
that it can not stand any kind of an examination. Adam and Eve, for
instance, are warned against the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil. But, really, they did not have to eat of this tree to be able
to tell good from evil, for they already knew the difference. When Adam
saw God, his maker, did he not love and honor him? If so, he knew what
was good. Did he not love his garden home? If so, he could tell what
was good. And did he not rejoice when Eve appeared before him with the
freshness of beauty in her cheeks and the sparkle of love in her eyes?
If so, Adam knew what was bliss. What was the object, then, of telling
Adam that he must not learn to distinguish good from evil? Did not Adam
and Eve enjoy their daily walks and musings? Did they not see that the
trees and the flowers springing up at their feet were fair to look upon?
Were they not able to smell the fragrance that came with each passing
zepyhr, or to feast on the luxury of shade and color that greeted their
eyes? Did not the song of the birds wake melodies in their souls? Surely
they were not wooden beings without either feeling or taste; yet, if
they could feel and choose, they certainly knew what was good and what
was not good before they ate of the magical tree in Eden.
Again, were not Adam and Eve made in the image of God? How, then, could
they be ignorant of good and evil? If they could not tell the difference
between good and evil, or between God and the devil, in what sense were
they created moral beings? A man really created in the likeness of God
does not have to eat of a tree before he can tell right from wrong.
God said to Adam: "For on the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die." That is conclusive evidence that Adam knew good from evil
before he ate of the forbidden tree; for he feared death. He must have
known that it was a terrible thing to die; he must have known enough
to prefer life to death, else he could not have been scared by such a
punishment.
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, _thou shalt not eat
of it_." This was not only a superfluous commandment, but also one that
could under no conceivable circumstances be obeyed. How could any one
be prevented from acquiring knowledge? To live is to learn. Why did God
give Adam eyes and ears if he was not to see or hear? But to see and
hear is to compare, and to compare is to learn. Memory retains what
the eyes and the ears have communicated to it, and thus is born
experience--the universal teacher. To give a man a pair of lungs, and
then to tell him he shall not breathe, would not be more unreasonable
than to give a man organs, senses, brains--to make him in the image
of God--and then to menace him with instant death if he should acquire
knowledge. To give an impossible commandment is to desire its violation.
The apologists of the bible say that God was only trying Adam's
character, as he tried Abraham's faith when he ordered him to sacrifice
his son Isaac. But why try Adam with the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil? Why not with some other tree? And why try him with an
impossible commandment? The first requisite of a trial is that it be
fair. Was it fair to deny to living and growing minds, "divinely" made,
the acquisition of experience? Is it fair to deny to one athirst, the
truth? And for whose benefit was the trial? God certainly must have
known in advance how Adam would behave under the circumstances; and as
for Adam, how could he act otherwise than as God had foreordained? Let
the truth be told: the bible deity was only seeking a pretext to damn
the first man he ever created and to curse the only world he ever made.
And this, that the clergy may be able to declaim, "God so loved the
world that he gave his only begotten son to die for it"!
If God meant only to test Adam's loyalty to his creator, how explain the
following text:
_And the Lord God said, Behold the man has become as one of us, to know
good and evil: and now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the
tree of life, and eat, and live forever; therefore the Lord God sent him
forth from the Garden of Eden.... So he drove out the man_. *
* Genesis iii, 22-24.
I am sorry, but that text places God in a poor light. The tree was
forbidden, to prevent Adam from becoming a higher being. The "Good God"
was angry because man had become like one of us. And "he drove out the
man" for an equally envious reason: "Lest he put forth his hand, and
take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" The "Lord God"
did not desire man to be immortal--that is why he "drove" him out of
Paradise, and to make the fall of man sure, to prevent his ever rising
to "divine" heights, the Lord God stationed guards with flaming swords
at the gates of Eden to beat back man from "the way of the tree of
life." And is this the God who so loved the world that he gave his only
begotten son to die for it? Had he been more honest with Adam the crime
of the crucifixion might have been prevented.
It is one of the principal tenets of all the churches that man was
created immortal, and that but for Adam's disobedience there would have
been no death in the world and Paradise would have remained in man's
possession forever. But there is not the shadow of a foundation in the
story as told in the bible for such an inference. The bible teaches the
very opposite of what the churches hold. Adam is driven from Paradise to
_prevent_ him from becoming immortal by eating also of the tree of
life. If God really wished the happiness of nan, he would, instead
of warning him against magical trees, have instructed him in the things
that preserve life and promote joy. He would have told Adam and Eve how
to love one another, to moderate their desires, and to labor daily for
beauty as well as for bread. He would have warned them, not against the
tree of knowledge, but against the cunning, crafty serpent, of whose
existence he leaves them in utter ignorance. If the bible God were
really the friend of man, he would never have pitted two inexperienced
children like Adam and Eve against Satan, the Lord of hell, and a match
for God Almighty himself. And in the hour of danger the Lord was not
there to help his little ones! He left them alone with the fiend who
plays with loaded dice! By whose permission did the devil make his
appearance in Paradise? And was there a devil before Adam fell? What a
story! Created and concealed in Eden, there was a devil, a monster,
who springs upon the first human pair, and they bleed to death in his
clutches; and "the Lord God" does not appear on the scene until after
the devil has retired. And this is the being whom we must call "Our
Father"! We are unable to find in the bible either a paradise or a
father. We have been taught to believe that where the devil is there is
hell; the devil was in the Garden of Eden, therefore, the Garden of
Eden could not have been truly a Paradise. And had God really been a
"father," he would never have forgotten to warn his children against the
serpent and his deadly sting.
But the story as told in Genesis is more creditable to the Evil One than
to "the Lord God." The devil told the truth to Eve when he assured her
that "In the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye
shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." His statement squares with the
facts. He did not deceive them. Nor did he coax, or urge them to eat of
the fruit of the tree. Adam and Eve were left to do as they pleased. The
devil did not threaten them with dire consequences if they refused to
obey his word. No attempt was made to scare or "stampede" them into
plucking the forbidden fruit. All he did was to tell them exactly what
would happen if they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge; and then
he retired. Let us place in parallel columns the words spoken by the
serpent, or the devil whom he is supposed to have personified, and those
of the Lord God:
The Lord God said : And the serpent said :
But of the tree of the Ye shall not surely die.
knowledge of good and evil, For God doth know that in
thou shalt not eat of it: for the day ye eat thereof, then
in the day that thou eatest your eyes shall be opened, and
thereof thou shalt surely ye shall be as gods, knowing
die.* good and evil. **
* This was spoken to Adam alone, for as yet Eve was not
created. See Genesis ii, 16, 17.
** Ibid. iii, 5.
Which of the two speakers told the truth? Adam and Eve did not die on
the day they ate of the tree, as God had said they would--Adam lived to
be nine hundred years old--and their eyes were opened to know good and
evil, just as the devil had predicted. We have already anticipated and
answered the argument that when God said they would die on the day they
ate of the forbidden tree, he meant they would become mortal. They were
not immortal before they had tasted of the fruit, since God expelled
them from Eden to prevent them from eating also of the tree of life and
becoming immortal.
To few of the readers of the bible has it ever occurred that the first
commandment God ever gave to man practically made the acquisition of
knowledge a crime. The truth is that the first commandment of every
revealed religion is a "Thou shalt not know." According to Genesis,
the Lord offered a Paradise to man on condition that he steer clear
of knowledge. There has been considerable discussion as to the precise
location of the Garden of Eden. But if we do not know where the
Garden of Eden was, we know very well what it was. The Garden of Eden
was--Ignorance. This is the Paradise which the revealed religions offer
to man. To know is to be expelled from Paradise. After God had placed
Adam in Paradise, that is to say, in a state of ignorance, he said
to him: "Thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge,"
threatening him at the same time with death on the day that he ate
of the fruit of that tree. Everything else was permitted save the
acquisition of knowledge. On the day that man opened his eyes he lost
the paradise of the gods--Ignorance!
It has been customary to trace modern scepticism, or free inquiry, to
the eighteenth century, or to the Renaissance; but in reality modern
thought began with Adam in the Garden of Eden--assuming for the time
being the correctness of the narrative. Man broke the very first
commandment the gods ever gave, "Thou shalt not know," and by so doing
he became himself a menace to the gods. That is very interesting. It was
not man who died on the day the fruit of knowledge was plucked; it was
the gods. "Take care!" said man to God. "Take care! The day on which I
eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge thou shalt die!" It is now
admitted by the foremost biblical scholars that there are really two
different stories of the creation of man in the first and second
chapters of the bible. The universe is called into being by _Elohim_ in
the first; while _Jahve_ is the name of the creator in the second.
Another important difference between the two accounts of the creation is
that in the one, man appears before the deity has completed the creation
of the heaven and the earth; while in the other man is the last thing
God creates. It will be observed also that there is not a word said in
the second account about man being made in the image of God, or of his
being created male and female; while there is nothing in the first
account about a garden or a forbidden tree. On the contrary, in the
earlier story every tree is given for "meat" unto the man and the woman,
who were created at the same time, and not the one out of a rib of the
other, and at a later time, as is related in the second account. In the
first, or Elohistic story, God blesses Adam and Eve and commands them to
"be fruitful and multiply"; in the second, or Jehovistic story,
child-bearing is not a blessing, but a curse pronounced upon the woman
for having eaten of the forbidden fruit. Eve has no offspring until she
is expelled from Paradise in the second version, while in the first,
Adam and Eve are commanded from the start to "multiply and replenish the
earth."
But why are both stories published? In all probability, to satisfy both
the _Elohistic_ and _Jehovistic_ factions. It is also probable that the
different accounts are the work of different compilers or collectors
of news. The bible gives many signs of being a miscellany of floating
reports and rumors, or "they says," picked up here and there, and put
together very loosely. Nor should we be surprised at the differences
between the Elohistic and Jehovistic writers, for they are not more
hopelessly at variance with each other than are the evangelists who tell
the story of Jesus.
II. Taboo and Totem.
|WHAT is the most probable explanation of the Garden of Eden story,
whether in its Babylonian or Hebrew form? To answer this question and
also to help explain many of the institutions and ceremonial observances
in the bible, it will be necessary to acquaint ourselves with the
meaning of certain words, such as taboo, totem and magic. The word taboo
has come into the modern language from the Polynesian, and it means
forbidden. And yet there is a fundamental difference between a thing
which is forbidden in the English sense of that word, and a thing which
is taboo in the sense which primitive races attached to that word. For
example, when we see a notice which reads, "Passengers are forbidden
to stand on the platform of the train," or "Smoking not allowed in the
dining-car," the object of the interdiction is in either case perfectly
plain. We know why the act in question is prohibited. There is no
suggestion of mystery about it. A thing that is taboo, however, is so
for a reason which is undiscoverable. The bible forbids the eating of
pork. Why? The theologians try to explain that the prohibition against
pork had a sanitary motive. Such an answer is tantamount to an admission
on their part that they have not studied the bible with any care at all.
To say that Moses objected to pork on sanitary grounds would be about as
reasonable as to say that he commanded the extermination of Gentiles on
humanitarian grounds. Yet many fall into the mistake of supposing that
it was the fear of leprosy, or the thread-worm, which induced the Jewish
legislator to place swine's flesh under a ban. To see how inadequate
this explanation is, all we have to do is to remember that in all the
bible there is not a single disease of any kind which is caused by
the eating or the drinking of anything. Disease in the bible is
supernatural. Meats or vegetables, the observance or neglect of dietary
and sanitary laws, have absolutely nothing to do with the coming or
going of a pestilence. Health, in the bible, has no more to do with
cleanliness of the body, with the use of soap, or moderation and
prudence in eating and drinking, than success in war, or prosperity in
life has with personal merit or effort. It is God who sends both health
and sickness, famine or the plague, as he sends manna from the clouds
and quails from the sea. To win a battle the people had only to stand
still, and see the Lord fight for them. Not until the Greeks appeared in
history was it discovered that health and sickness had natural causes,
and that the gods had nothing whatever to do with them. What, then, is
the explanation of the interdict against swine's flesh in the bible?
Before answering that, let us look at a few other examples, of taboo in
the Old Testament.
The name of God, like swine's flesh, was taboo. "That shalt not take
the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (the _in vain_ is a rationalist
explanation which was affixed to the text by a later hand). Now, why
was the name of God forbidden? In all probability it was to prevent
the stranger or the enemy from calling upon their God; it explains the
unwillingness of the Jews to share Jahve with the rest of the world. But
it is as much a guess to say why the name of God was taboo, as it is
to give a reason for the ecclesiastical ban against the hog. The
commandments of science are intelligible; the dogmas of religion are
dark. Why do we have to believe in the trinity, the virgin birth, etc.,
in order to be saved? It is a mystery.
Another taboo was the Ark of the Covenant. This was a wooden box,
supposed to be the retreat of the deity. To touch this wooden chest
meant instant death. Uzzah was instantly killed for trying to steady
the ark in transit, "for the oxen shook it." * And, on another occasion,
over fifty thousand people were massacred "because they had looked into
the ark of the Lord." ** Why destroy "fifty thousand and three score
and ten men" for such a trifle? If it were because they disobeyed the
priest, was it not the duty of the priest to give the reason which made
touching or looking into a box a deadly crime? But in religion to
ask for an explanation is also taboo. The things of religion are not
supposed to be understood. To understand is taboo.
* II Samuel vi, 6.
** I Samuel vi, 19.
A more important example of things forbidden without reason or rhyme is
the Sabbath. The prevailing interpretation is that out of compassion for
man and beast the deity ordained a day of rest. But the truth is that
pity for the laboring man or the animal had positively nothing to do
with the institution of "holy moons" and Sabbaths. It is the stress of
modern thought that leads priests and rabbis to explain the Sabbath on
Rationalist grounds. To begin with, oriental races were not so exceeding
fond of work as to necessitate a divine fiat to compel them to take a
rest. If anything, they needed to be urged and scourged to work at all.
They were only too willing to let the Lord do everything for them. The
ideal of the oriental believer was to be "like the lilies of the field,
which toil not, neither do they spin." * What need was there for the
bible people to invent machinery, to build factories, or to acquire
science, when a miracle-working God was ever at their elbow."_O, to be
Nothing, Nothing_," is to this day, one of the hymns in the churches.
* The Sermon on the Mount.
In the twenty-second chapter of Deuteronomy it is forbidden "to plough
with an ox and an ass together." The theologians quote the text to prove
that kindness to animals was the motive of this ordinance, as kindness
to man was, of the Sabbath. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Why, then, is it unlawful to yoke an ass with an ox? It is another one
of the mysteries of religion.
We have only to read on to learn that motives of humanity, justice or
economy play no part at all in these ordinances. "Thou shalt not sow thy
vineyard with divers seeds," says the same chapter. Surely this was not
from any consideration of compassion for the soil or the seed. And when
the bible again says: "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sort, as
of woolen and linen together," is it for sanitary or economic reasons
that the commandment was given? When again we read, "Ye shall eat no
manner of fat, of ox or of sheep," etc., it surely was not for any
hygienic reason that fat was prohibited, for it goes on to say that "the
fat belongs to the Lord." But why should the Lord be so jealous of fat?
It is no more possible to understand the ordinance against fat, or mixed
seed sowing, or garments of mingled yam, and a thousand other similarly
puerile edicts in the Old Testament, than it is to understand why it is
necessary to sprinkle a man with water, or rub him with oil, before he
can be a good Christian. Why an ox and an ass should not plough together
is just as much a mystery as transubstantiation. The English and the
American bible societies are translating these Hebrew and Christian
riddles and distributing the book at the rate of about twenty million
copies a year, costing an amount of money, energy and time, which if
devoted to the advancement of health alone would do more toward making
this earth a paradise for man, now and here, than all the mysteries and
miracles of religion.
But let us not forget to explain the origin of the ban against the
Sabbath, or the seventh day. It will surprise the Sabbatarian to learn
that originally work was forbidden on the seventh day of the week for
the same reason that many in our day object to start on a journey or
on an enterprise of any kind on a Friday, or on the thirteenth of the
month. The prejudice against Friday and the number "13" is based on
the belief that both the day and the number are evil. Why? Nobody knows
exactly. In the same way, the seventh day was considered by all Semitic
races as an evil day--a day of disaster, unpropitious and accursed. The
fear of the savage for the seventh day was as foolish as our fear of
Friday, or of the number "13." But we laugh at our own prejudice about
Friday and regard the savage's awe of the seventh day as inspired.
As already stated, the seventh day was taboo because it was supposed to
be accursed. No work was to be done on that day, not because the work
would spoil the day, but because they feared the day would spoil the
work. Even in our day, if a man goes fishing on a bright Sunday, and is
drowned, or if children go picnicking on the Sabbath, and are run over,
the usual comment is that they lost their lives, not for fishing or
picnicking, but for doing these perfectly innocent things on a certain
day. Sunday is an evil day--for fishing, or for recreation of any kind.
On the Sabbath, the safest thing, according to the bible, is to stay
indoors. It is a bad day for pleasure, and a bad day for labor. There
is only one thing that is safe on the Sabbath--going to church. Do we
wonder now that children hated the Sabbath, or that a gloom fell upon
both young and old on that lugubrious day?
But this supposedly evil day in time came to be regarded as "holy." I
say supposedly evil, because there are no evil days, even as there are
no "holy" days. One day is like another; it is superstition that makes
a certain day, or place, or number, holier than another. And we have a
right to be suspicious of a religion that thinks more, for example, of
the number 3, or 7, or 40, or of the first or seventh day of the week
than of other days or numbers. One of the motives which, according to
the bible, actuated the building of a temple for Jehovah was to observe
more solemnly "the Sabbaths and the new moons of the Lord." * The new
moons! Why is a "new moon" more virtuous or talismanic than a full moon?
What has righteousness to do with "new moons" or full moons? Why do we
have to spend millions of dollars every year to send missionaries abroad
to teach them the observance of "Sabbaths and new moons"? I am aware
that the missionaries omit the "new moons," but is it not also in the
Word of God? And what right has the missionary to drop anything from the
Word of God? Has he forgotten the awful warning of the closing words of
the bible? "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book
of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,"
etc. ** But there is not a sect that has not both taken from, and added
to, the Word of God. We tremble to think what will happen to them. "God
shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." *** And
what could be worse than the plagues mentioned in the bible? ****
* II Chronicles ii, 4.
** Revelation xxii, 19.
*** Revelation xxii, 18.
**** One of the rather mild plagues is described in
Leviticus xxvi, 22-29: "I will also send wild beasts among
you, which shall rob you of your children.... And ye shall
eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your
daughters." Twenty million copies a year of this book are
sold!
As a day of rest and recreation, of intellectual, moral and aesthetic
culture and pleasure, Sunday will always be one of the dearest
institutions of civilization. But as already explained, humanitarian
or ethical motives had no share at all in the making of the
Jewish-Christian Sabbath. Would the clergy, for instance, consent to
have any other day than Sunday observed as "holy"? Would they have the
courage to call Tuesday or Thursday the Sabbath of the Lord, sanctified
and set apart from all eternity? If not, the inference is inevitable
that what they are principally interested in is the day--the taboo--and
not the rest and profit which may be derived from quitting work on a
given day of the week.
Among the primitive races a thing was taboo either because it was
supposed to be "unholy" or because it was supposed to be "holy." A
Catholic must not touch the sacraments because they are "holy," and
the Jew must not touch swine's flesh because it is "unholy." In the one
case, as in the other, it is a "thou shalt not." Why the touch of the
fingers should defile the sacraments but not the touch of the palate or
the lips; or why swine's flesh should mar one's character or standing
before the community, is not explained because it can not be explained.
Theology is a collection of enigmas. The less the people understand
their religion the more they believe in it. A taboo is not meant to be
understood; it is only meant to be obeyed. The Babylonians, from whom
the Hebrews got their Sabbath, refrained from work on that day because
they considered it an evil day; we refrain from work on that day because
we think the day too sacred for work. It is not at all strange that
the reason for a given taboo, being no more than a whim, should in the
course of time change. The "thou shalt not" remains; the why does not
matter much, because the why belongs to reason, and religion is a matter
of faith.
The Totem
|TO show further how the unholy becomes, in time, the holy, or vice
versa, let us glance at another barbaric institution of the past, that
of the totem. The word taboo, as already explained, is Polynesian in
origin; the word totem has come to us from the American Indian. Totem is
a more difficult word to translate into modern thought. The most
popular definition I could give to it would be to say that a totem is a
"mascot." And yet, it is very much more. To savage tribes a totem was
an object, more frequently an animal, which was sacred to the particular
tribe that had identified itself with it. The thing, or the plant, or
the beast thus selected, became an emblem, badge or bond of union. It
served also as a sort of password by which the members of the tribe were
recognized, and a center around which the clan grouped itself. To the
totem they looked for preservation against famine, war and annihilation
as a tribe. The totem was the soul of the tribe--the tribe in essence.
The golden-rod is the national flower of America, the lily is upon the
shield of France, the shamrock is Irish, the world over; in some
such sense, only meaning very much more, was the totem to our savage
ancestors.
Now we are in a position to guess at least why the bible forbids swine's
flesh. Solomon Reinach, a distinguished Jewish scholar, and member of
the French Academy, says that the boar was the totem of the Jew long
before Moses appeared on the scene. * The totem was protected by a
taboo, and, therefore, to eat it was a national crime. To destroy one's
totem was a sacrilege and a blasphemy, punishable by death. They looked
upon the man who ate his totem with more abhorrence than we would feel
toward a fellow countryman who insulted his flag. Here, then, we have
two counter currents; the Sabbath, beginning as an evil day, becomes
"holy," while the hog, once a totem, an object of reverence, a god,
degenerates into an unclean beast. Yet the one, as much as the other, is
as taboo as ever.
* Orpheus, Solomon Reinach, page 27: "Les Juifs pieux
s'abstiennent de manger du porc, parce que leurs lointains
ancestres, cinq on six mille ans avant notre ere, avaient
pour totem le sanglier."
The "thou shalt not labor on the Sabbath day," and the "thou shalt not
eat swine's flesh," remain the same, though the why is shifted from the
"because it is unholy" to a "because it is holy," in the case of the
Sabbath; and from the "because it is holy" to a "because it is unholy,"
in the case of the hog. In the meantime, it remains as true as ever that
there is nothing either "holy" or "unholy" about a hog or a day. Why was
the seventh day cursed or blest? Why, of all the animals, was the
hog selected, first to be adored and then to be abhorred? While many
interesting reasons could be suggested, the truth is that, like the
majority of religious rites and dogmas, both taboo and totem are
impenetrable mysteries. When, in the Merchant of Venice, Shylock is
asked why he covets a pound of that merchant's flesh, "nearest his
heart," with a toss of his head, and his eyes afire, he replies: "It is
my humor." * And if we were to ask Jehovah why swine's flesh is taboo,
or why the seventh day is "holy," or why the priest under penalty of
death must carry a golden bell and a pomegranate upon the hem of
his robe, ** or why the man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not
circumcised shall be cut off from his people ***, or why "Whosoever
cometh any thing near unto the tabernacle of the Lord shall die," **** or
why it is a deadly crime to peep into a wooden box, or yoke an ass with
an ox, the answer would be the same: "It is my humor."
* Act iv, Scene I.
** Exodus xxviii, 34-43.
*** Genesis xvii, 14.
**** Numbers xvii, 13.
Nothing could be more convincing that humor and not reason dictated the
commandments in the bible, than the large number of taboos, the neglect
of which was invariably visited with death. If a man kindled a fire in
his kitchen on the Sabbath, or picked up sticks, he "shall surely be
put to death"; if he forgot to observe the feast of the passover, or ate
leavened bread during the passover, or ate the fat, or the blood of the
animals he slaughtered for food, he "shall surely be put to death"; if
a man made a holy ointment, or perfumery, or if he offered sacrifices
without the help of a priest, or killed his cattle without giving a
part of it to the priest, he "shall surely be put to death." If a man
entered the house of the dying, or touched a pig or a dead animal, and
did not pay the priest to absolve him from his guilt, he "shall surely
be put to death."
The Old Testament is a veritable deathtrap. On every page, and behind
every sentence, almost, there is a trap. It takes a very clever dodger
to escape falling into one of them. Even Moses was caught and smashed in
a trap. Out of all the people who left Egypt for the promised land, all
but two perished in the wilderness because of some infringement of the
ceremonial law. What a failure! Even as Eden, offered for a paradise
to man, became the tomb of the human race, the promised land became the
cemetery of the people who sacrificed their homes for it. Such is the
humor of the gods!
But let us speak of another totem. The Catholics eat fish on Friday. Not
one out of a million Catholics knows why fish is preferred to meat on
a certain day in the week. The fish, too, was at one time a totem in
Syria. The early Christians, being largely from that part of the country
where the fish was sacred, made a place for it in their new faith. In
the writings of the Christian Fathers, Jesus is often called the Big
Fish, and his disciples the little fish. Upon many of the ancient
Christian tombstones there was engraved a fish. Tertullian, a shining
light in the early church, speaks of his converts as "the fishes born
in the waters of baptism." In the early communion service, the fish
represented the divine elements. To this day the fish, an ancient Syrian
totem, holds its sway not only upon Christians, but also upon the Jews.
An orthodox Jew, no matter how poor, must have his fish every Friday
evening. *
* Orpheus, Solomon Reinach, page 29.
But how did people come to eat their totem? It was explained above that
swine's flesh is taboo, because of the sacredness of the boar to an
ancient Semitic tribe; if the fish was also sacred, and protected by a
"thou shalt not," or a taboo, how did it come to be an article of diet?
Under exceptional circumstances all primitive tribes ate their totems,
or their gods. In the time of famine or war they fed on the sacred beast
for self-preservation--before which all other laws break down. Moreover,
it was their belief that by eating their totem they acquired its virtues
and strength. To partake of the qualities of the totem, and to become
more closely identified with it--made one with it--it was deemed
necessary on solemn occasions to eat it. Eating the totem came to be,
in time, a religious rite. Of course, it was with many regrets and
apologies that the savage slew his totem for food. He mourned over
it and blamed himself for the death of his god. On the other hand, as
intimated above, he argued that the only way he could get into a closer
communion with his totem, and become a partaker of his virtues, he must
eat of his flesh and drink of his blood. The Christian communion service
is the modern version of an ancient rite. On Sundays, and with much
mourning, the Christian crucifies again his totem, to eat of his body,
broken for him on the cross, and to drink of his blood, shed for the
remission of his sins. Is it not wonderful how one superstition is like
another?
The Holy Ghost, one of the members of the trinity, is represented in
the form of a dove, because, like the fish and the boar, the dove was
another ancient totem. Whenever an animal, or a tree, or any other
object, is made to represent the deity, as the dove represents the Holy
Ghost, or the fish the Son of God, or the bull, or the eagle Zeus, we
may be quite sure that at one time these animals were gods. Gradually,
from being regarded as gods, they came only to represent them. When the
Holy Ghost, now and then, takes on the form of a dove, it goes to prove
that the Holy Ghost started as a dove--the dove was the Holy Ghost.
And just as races of men sometimes fall back to the level of their
ancestors, the gods go back to the dove, and the fish, and the boar,
whence they came. The gods, too, like their religions, die of the same
disease--that of being found out.
The point which it has been the object of the discussion on taboos and
totems to establish is that the laws and commandments in the bible, as
well as the doings attributed to the deity represent, not Reason, but
humor. Whim plays the chief rôle in the divine drama. Noah is ordered to
take with him into the ark, "of every clean beast" seven pairs; "and of
beasts that are not clean, two pairs, the male and the female." But no
instruction is given him as to what makes a beast clean or unclean, or
how Noah is to tell the one from the other. Nor is it explained why a
certain number of unclean beasts are to be saved, while all the unclean
of the human race are to be drowned. The only answer we would get from
the "Lord God," if we asked him for an explanation, would be, "It is my
humor."
And why should any animals be preserved at all? If the deity could by
a word of his mouth cause all forms of life, vegetable and animal, to
spring forth out of the ground; if by a mere "Let there be light," he
could create light--why should he trouble himself about packing the ark
with specimen animals to preserve the species? And why was it necessary
to rain for forty days, to drown a world which it took him about six
days to create out of nothing? But we are reasoning, and in religion,
reason is taboo.
How different is science! The bible is a book of puzzles; science is
common sense. The bible treats of forms and ceremonies--of holy water,
holy oils, holy wafers and of forbidden trees and animals. Science, on
the other hand, explains the inexorable laws of nature, a knowledge
of which, and obedience to which, makes for life and happiness. Let us
rejoice that science has broken for us the spell of superstition.
III. The Bible and Magic
|STILL another word, the explanation of which would greatly help us
to understand the bible, is the word magic. A magician, according to
Voltaire, is a man who pretends to possess the secret of doing what
nature can not do. Another Frenchman defines magic as the "strategy
of the savage." There is not very much difference between these two
definitions. Magic is the weapon, or the art, or the science, of the
savage against the powers of nature. The magician claims to be able to
"go one better" than nature, or to bring nature to terms. If there is a
drought, the magician offers to compel rain from the stubborn skies; if
the plague is upon the land, the magician bids it steal away; if wild
beasts attack his hut, the magician throws a spell over them and makes
them harmless. Fire will not burn, water will not drown, the grave can
not hold its prey, and even the gods become helpless at a word from the
magician. Magic, in a sense, is the coup d'etat of the savage.
When one country is at war with another, the best generalship consists
in finding out the tactics of the enemy with a view of beating him at
his own game. Likewise, the aim of the magician is to steal the secret
of the gods and then play the part of a god not only better than the
gods themselves, but against them as well. Is not man wonderful!
In one sense, magic is science in the making. But while science seeks
to control nature through knowledge, magic resorts to spells, charms,
incantations and concoctions. In other words, magic is dishonest
science.
Now, much as I regret to say it, the bible is more than tainted with
this kind of science. Not a word is there in the bible about studying
the laws of nature, for study is not necessary where there is magic.
The real thing, science, is made superfluous by the imitation
article--magic. Thus the bible, by its preference for a false
science, postponed, if it did not succeed in defeating altogether, the
intellectual evolution of man.
Scarcely anything happens in the bible in a natural way. Miracles are so
many, and so frequent, that there is practically no nature in the bible.
The dead arise, the rivers flow backward, the sea turns into dry land,
sticks change into serpents, the axe head floats on the water, walls
and fortifications fall at the sound of a trumpet, animals talk, virgins
become mothers, sun and moon are arrested and then set free, and a
universe is produced out of nothing, with as little ado as a magician
requires to pull a rabbit out of his sleeve.
We are in the land of magic. Nature is suspended, and the supernatural
is in full swing.
I read the other day of a country farmer who went to see a celebrated
conjurer perform his wonders. He saw the "wizard" pick money out of the
air, shoot watches into people's pockets, change copper into gold and
silver, and perform a hundred other equally marvelous feats. As he was
leaving the charmed presence of the juggler, he expressed his surprise
that so resourceful a man should be under the necessity of giving
performances to earn a living. He could not understand why a man whose
touch turned everything to gold should collect dimes at the box office.
Of course, the explanation is perfectly simple: The wonders which the
conjurer performs are sham wonders. In the same way, the miracles in
the bible never help anybody nor accomplish anything because they are
sham miracles. The bush which bums, and yet is not consumed, is a sham
bush--the bush is not a bush, and the fire is not real fire. The few
loaves and fishes with which Jesus fed a great multitude were sham
loaves and fishes, and the multitude which, though hungry, could not
exhaust the food, was a sham multitude. Sham bread, sham multitude,
sham hunger! Such are the wonders of the conjurer or the magician in or
outside the bible. If Jesus really possessed the power of multiplying
a few loaves into an exhaustless supply of bread, why is there then any
poverty in the world?
Moreover, the miracles--which are as thick on the pages of the bible as
blackberries on a bush--what good did they do to the people for whose
benefit they were performed? If the Egyptians perished in their homes,
the Jews perished in the wilderness; if the Egyptians lost their slaves,
the Jews lost their sons and daughters--lost themselves. What good did
all the miracles performed in their behalf do for them? Their city,
Jerusalem, was set on fire, their homes pillaged, their children put to
the edge of the sword, over and over again. What benefit did they derive
from the ten thousand miracles lavished upon them? And look at the
Greeks! Not one miracle did Jehovah perform for them. Yet they rose to
be the masters of the world, and are still by their worth and genius,
the teachers of mankind.
The most unexpected and impossible things are said and done in the
bible. When Abraham was bom, his father, Terah, was seventy years old.
In every other book, as the father grows older, the son, too, would
advance in years. But in the bible, while Terah grows older, Abraham
grows younger, or stops growing altogether, so that when his father is
two hundred and five years old, he himself is only seventy-five years
old, making him sixty years younger than he should be by all the laws
of arithmetic. But what is arithmetic to a magician? When the theologian
says three times one is one, he is not thinking of so little a thing as
mathematics--there are no impossibilities for the magician. He can make
the three one, and the one three. Listen to one of the great Christian
Fathers, Tertullian:
_What have the philosopher and the Christian in common? The disciple of
Greece, and the disciple of heaven? What have Athens and Jerusalem, the
church and the academy, heretics and Christians in common? There is
no more inquiry for us, now that Christ has come, nor any occasion for
further investigation, since we have the gospel.... The Son of God is
dead; it is right credible because it is absurd; being buried he has
arisen; it is certain, because it is impossible._
There are no difficulties for theologians. If
"Isaiah, the prophet, cried unto the Lord, and he brought the shadow (of
the sun) ten degrees backward... in the dial," * why could not Abraham
grow backward? If Joshua could arrest the sun, what is a little miracle
like that of Abraham standing still while the whole world moved on? If
Jesus could be bom without a father, why could not Melchisedec be bom
without either a father or a mother? This personage was, perhaps, one
of the most wonderful in bible history. He had neither beginning nor
ending, neither a father nor a mother.
_For this Melchisedec... to whom also Abraham gave a tenth (of the
spoils)... without father, without mother, without descent, having
neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son
of God._ **
* II Kings xix, ii.
** Hebrews vii, 1-3.
Wonderful as he was, he believed in getting his share of the spoils. The
theologians, in the bible, or outside of it, do not seem to be in the
least surprised at the incredible things in the Word of God. If Eve were
not startled when she heard the serpent talk, neither is the American
theologian who takes that for his text. If Balaam was not at all
perplexed when his ass opened its mouth and asked him a question,
neither are the divinity professors in our universities who explain
the incident to their pupils. This, if anything, is the more wonderful
miracle.
If I were riding a horse, and all of a sudden the animal should turn
around and ask me what the subject of my lecture would be for next
Sunday, I would certainly be dumfounded. Yet neither Balaam, nor his
fellow theologians of to-day, show the least perturbation over an ass
interrogating his rider. They can not afford to. Is not God almighty?
And, besides, upon what grounds would they be justified in rejecting
this or that miracle while accepting others? Was it more difficult for
Balaam's ass to have talked than for Christ to have been bom without
a father, or Melchisedec without any parents at all? Magic and miracle
know no laws.
"If God had not opened the mouth of the ass," said Father Ignatius, a
modern evangelist of the Anglican communion, "remember that there would
have been no Christ." The Christian who says he believes in the virgin
birth, but not in the talking serpent or ass, is a sceptic already.
The reasoning by which he rejects the one miracle is equally effective
against all the others. To accept the Christ miracle by faith, and to
reject the Balaam miracle by reason, is a procedure which leads
to anarchism in thought and faith. Oh, no; if you believe in the
supernatural at all you will have to believe in Melchisedec and Balaam,
as you do in the virgin-born Christ. You can not choose your miracles.
All or none! And the man who believes in one miracle is not a bit
different from the man who believes in a million.
The Unitarian president of America * defines Christianity as "The
fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man." When Edward Everett Hale
died, the Unitarians said that "Pater noster"--our Father--expressed
the heart and soul of his Christianity. A short time ago, Doctor
Eliot, president emeritus of Harvard University, undertook to reduce
Christianity to the same simple terms. The idea common to these men is
that the only essential thing is the God idea. Never mind about Balaam,
or the virgin birth. "Our Father which art in heaven" is all that is
necessary. But one moment: Is not God as much a miracle as Christ or
Balaam? How do we know God is, or that he is a father, or that he is in
heaven? By faith? Why then is not faith also enough to make all
miracles true? The "Our Father" is a chip of the same old block of
supernaturalism. There are against one little chip from the block all
the objections that there are against the whole block. If God is our
father by faith, then Christ was bom of a virgin by faith, and the whale
swallowed Jonah by faith, and the pope is the vicar of God by faith, and
so on to the end of the creed. Let us be consistent; which is another
way of saying, let us be honest.
* President Taft
The Unbelievable in the Bible
|THE bible taxes even _credulity_ beyond the point of endurance. No
matter how willing one may be to believe everything in the bible, there
is a limit even to one's willingness to believe. When Moses was upon the
mountain talking with God, the people down in the plain were worshiping
idols. Is it possible that with the quaking and thundering mountain
before them, with the deity sitting on its summit, the Jews would have
had the temerity to worship a golden calf? Yet this is precisely what
the Jews are accused of doing. The parting of the Red Sea is easier to
believe than that the Jews worshiped a calf in the immediate presence
of "the one true God"! Let us glance at the story as it is told in the
bible.
_And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were
thunders and lightning, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice
of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the
camp trembled.
And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God. And
they stood at the nether part of the mount.
And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and
louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice_. *
Is it believable that, under such circumstances, with the only God in
sight of all the people, and his voice in their ears, the Jews could
have turned to Aaron and said to him:
_Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses,
the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is
become of him._ **
Both stories can not be true. Either there was no quaking mountain, or
sounding trumpet, or voice of God answering Moses from the summit, or
the tale of the golden calf is an interpolation. If the people were too
stupid to know better, how was it that Aaron, the brother of Moses,
who had met "the true God" on several occasions, instead of showing the
least indignation or surprise, says to them:
_Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of
your sons and of your daughters, and bring them unto me._ ***
* Exodus xix, 16,17,19.
** Exodus xxxii, 1.
*** Exodus xxxii, 2.
Yes, "bring me your gold," has been the cry of the mystery-man from the
beginning of the world!
_And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving
tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy
gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt_. *
All this in full view of the flaming mountain, with God conversing
with Moses, and the trumpet blowing louder and louder! It is simply
impossible. There is not credulity enough in man, it seems to me, for
such contradictory stories. I know men say they believe in them, but do
they?
Strange as was the conduct of Aaron and the people on this occasion,
the behavior of Moses, when he came down and saw the people dancing
like naked savages about their newly fashioned god, ** was even more
inexplicable. He made a drink out of the golden calf, which he first
ground into powder, and caused "the children of Israel to drink of it."
*** What could have been his idea in converting the god into a beverage?
A text like that indicates plainly the presence of fetishism in the
bible. Even as looking at a brazen serpent was supposed to cure them of
serpent bites, the drinking of gods melted into a beverage was thought
to be a remedy against idolatry. Other examples, proving the fetishistic
beliefs of Moses, are not wanting in the bible. To make a house
"holy" or proof against the plague, Moses put up the following magical
prescription:
* Exodus xxxii, 4.
** Exodus xxxii, 25.
*** Exodus xxxii, 20.
_And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and
scarlet, and hyssop:
And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running
water:
And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and
the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the
running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:_
_And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the
running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and
with the hyssop, and with the scarlet._ *
To ascertain a woman's virtue, the prescription was as follows:
_And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the
dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and
put it into the water:
And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot
them out with the bitter water:
And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the
curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and
become bitter._
This was not all; an animal's flesh was also burned and mixed with the
water.
_And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass,
that, if she be defiled... her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall
rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people_. **
* Leviticus xiv, 49-52.
** Numbers v, 11-27.
If these symptoms did not appear, then the woman was not guilty. But
is it believable that, with God at their elbow, constantly answering
questions, revealing to them the pas and the future, and making all
hidden things plain, they needed mixed drinks, or concoctions, to find
out whether or not a woman was innocent? And mark you, evidence had no
place at all in the Mosaic court. No witnesses were examined, and no
testimony taken; it was the mixed preparations that did the work of
judge and jury. Is it possible that all this is divine?
Blood, according to the bible, is a great disinfectant. The way to
sanctify a man or a people was to sprinkle them with blood.
_Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon
the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of
his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe
of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.
And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the
anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and
upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him. *
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people._ **
How does such a practice differ from fetishism? How can blood on the
garments have any effect upon the conscience or the intellect? The
plea that all this was mere symbolism, if applied also to the rites and
ceremonies prescribed by the Hindu or Persian priesthood, would make
all religions inspired. The ancient Hindus believed that cow-dung was
divinely prescribed for sanctifying purposes. Why was not that, too,
mere symbolism? The word symbolism is made to cover a multitude of
superstitions. Lacking the courage, and sometimes also the honesty, to
say that such ceremonies prove a very low state of culture on the part
of the people who observed them, clever theologians not only excuse
or defend them, but they even profess to find symbolized in them the
mysterious purposes of the infinite. Superstition dies hard.
Even as sprinkling with blood sanctified the people, confessing to a
goat secured a pardon from God for sin.
_And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and
confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all
their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of
the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the
wilderness:
And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not
inhabited_. ***
* Exodus xxix, 20-21.
** Exodus xxiv, 8.
*** Leviticus xvi, 21-22.
Could this be the origin of the confessional? The goat ceremony has a
wider meaning than the commentators will admit. There were really two
goats, upon which Aaron, the priest, cast lots, "one lot for the Lord,
and the other lot for the scapegoat." *
The word "scapegoat" is a euphemism; the Hebrew text says _Azazel_. Now
this was one of the terrible names of God. Both Jews and Mohammedans
believed Azazel to be a dread divinity. Milton introduces Azazel as
the standard-bearer of the fallen hosts of heaven. The Arabs, who are a
branch of the Semitic race, paid homage to this celestial, and spoke of
him as the counsellor or advocate of Allah who was banished from heaven
because when Adam, the first man, appeared upon the scene, he would not
bow to him. Azazel did not think much of man; and it was for that he
lost his position. The "scapegoat," then, in the text was none other
than his Satanic majesty, the fallen chief of the heavenly hosts--the
devil. Setting apart a goat for Azazel, or allowing him to share with
Jehovah the offering at the altar, gives support to the belief that the
Jews worshiped the devil as well as Jehovah. It is plainly stated in
other parts of the bible that devil worship was common among the Jews
even as late as the time of Rehoboam, who reigned after David and
Solomon. ** But more light is thrown on the subject of the intimacy
between God and Satan in the story of Job.
* Leviticus xvi, 7-8.
** II Chronicles xi, 15: "And he ordained him priests for
the high places, and for the devils."
IV. The Strangest Story in the Bible
|ONE of the strangest chapters in the bible is the description of
the interview between God and the devil. The interview takes place in
heaven. We have already met the devil in Paradise; now we are to
find him, as the French say, in a _tête à tête_ with Jehovah, at the
exclusive headquarters of the latter. There is much reason to believe
that these two beings, who seem to be together on important occasions,
originally sprang from the same stock, if such a term could be used.
Jehovah and Azazel, or Satan, appear to be first cousins. This is the
impression of nearly every student who looks into their pedigrees. In
the thought of early man God was hardly distinguishable from the devil.
The evidence bears out the bible suggestion that at one time God and the
devil were on the best of terms, and kept house together. In those days
it was really difficult to tell them apart. In the twenty-first chapter
of the first book of Chronicles, it is written by "inspiration" that
"God moved David to number Israel." In the twenty-fourth chapter, the
first verse, of the second book of Samuel, we read that it was Satan who
moved David to take a census of the nation. There is no inconsistency
here. God and Satan belong to the "unknown," and they pull together.
When, as the bible informs us, there was war in heaven, the two
relatives quarreled and parted. And though ever since they have
maintained separate quarters, now and then, when there was a reunion of
the family, Satan was invited to join the festivities. There is a saying
that "blood is thicker than water," and still another, that "blood will
tell." The occasional conferences and exchange of confidences between
Jehovah and Satan, as related in the bible, is a confirmation of these
popular proverbs.
The instructions given to Aaron about being sure to have two goats, and
to let Azazel have the one which fell to his lot, even though it may
be the fatter animal, shows the care which Jehovah takes of his ancient
comrade and minister. Perhaps this was necessary to keep the peace.
At any rate, it is evident that Jehovah was mindful of the rights of
Azazel.
But now about the interview between Jehovah and Satan: "Now there was a
day," says the bible, "when the sons of God came to present themselves
before the Lord, and Satan came also among them." * Was he, too, one
of the Sons of God? It is impossible to read the description of these
family gatherings in heaven with Satan also invited, without being
impressed with the importance of the devil in the councils of God.
Perhaps the _entente cordiale_ between Satan and Jehovah is to be
explained by the fact that the latter had not found any one among all
his ministers who could fill the place made vacant by the resignation of
Satan. Jehovah needed the devil, and this dependence upon him to carry
to a successful issue his most urgent and mysterious decrees was the
secret of the deference shown to the devil in these periodical reunions
at the throne of God. On one of these occasions, as we have seen, when
the children of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan,
of course, was there among them. But this was not the only time that
Satan was invited to meet with God. His presence at these gatherings
created no surprise, because he had been seen there frequently. But I am
not equally sure that the marks of special attention shown to him by
the Lord of heaven did not make the saints a little jealous of him. The
reports of these meetings in heaven confine themselves exclusively to
what transpires between the two principals, God and Satan. The other
"sons of God" seem to have acted what in modern parlance would be called
"a silent part."
* Job i, 6.
Jehovah inquired of his distinguished guest, the news and whence he
came. As the Lord knew all the news himself, and also whence Satan came,
he must have asked these questions for the purpose of "drawing him out,"
to use an expression in vogue among diplomats.
But Satan knew how to keep a secret. He answered his host's question
without really telling anything either of the news, or whence he came:
"From going to and fro in the earth and from walking up and down in it,"
he replied. If we were not afraid of exposing ourselves to the charge
of blasphemy, we would say that this was a devilish answer. It said
nothing. Evidently Satan wanted God to show his hand first.
"Hast thou considered," asked the Lord, addressing Satan more
confidentially, and coming to the point, "my servant Job, that there
is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that
fear-eth God, and escheweth evil?" *
* Job 1,8.
In all probability the reference to Job was to prove that there was one
man, at least, whom the devil had not yet been able to win over to his
side. But the devil had an explanation for his failure to get Job;
it was not because Job loved God, but because of the favors God kept
showering upon him.
"Doth Job fear God for naught?" he asked. "Hast not thou made an hedge
about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every
side?... But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and
he will curse thee to thy face." *
This was a challenge. Satan would not allow that there was even one man
who loved and served God from choice. To show his confidence in Job, the
Lord not only accepted the devil's challenge, but volunteered to hand
over his one faithful subject to the tender mercies of the Evil One.
_And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold all that he hath is in thy power._
**
* Job i, 9-11.
** Job i, 12.
Thereupon Satan hurried out in search of his victim. Whether or not the
other "children of God" who were present at this reunion, heard this
interesting conversation between the two divinities, and who they
thought would come out winner in the contest over a denizen of the
earth, is not recorded. Job, of course, was not aware of the fact that
Jehovah and Satan were throwing dice for his soul. Nor was he consulted
whether or not he wanted to be turned over to the devil for the worst
drubbing any one ever received. From a human point of view, it was an
unspeakable outrage to take a "perfect and upright man" and hand him
over to be thrashed within an inch of his life. But there is, the
learned doctors of divinity tell us, a difference between human and
divine justice. "God's ways are not our ways," as his conduct in this
case amply proves.
The devil lost no time in falling upon Job now that he had _carte
blanche_ to bring his ingenuity into play. He began by attacking Job's
property, which the Sabeans carry off. Scarcely has the patriarch
reconciled himself to this loss, when word is brought to him that "the
fire of God is fallen from heaven," burning up everything that belonged
to him in the fields. "The fire of God"? It looks as if Jehovah had not
only permitted Satan to ruin Job, if he could, but he was helping him,
personally, by sending down fire upon Job's servants and cattle. And
what was the fault of these that they, too, should be punished? And why
were the sons and daughters of Job killed? For the next messenger tells
Job that all his children were destroyed by a terrific windstorm, also
sent by God. But it is one thing to ask these questions of a theologian,
and another thing to get him to answer them. Despite these terrible
blows, however, Job remained loyal to God. Jehovah came out ahead in the
first inning. But the game is not over yet.
Another meeting is arranged for between these two powers. Again they
meet in heaven. It was a dangerous thing to let the devil into heaven so
often, after the experience of Adam and Eve in Paradise, with its
dire results, not only to man, but to the son of God himself, whose
crucifixion might have been prevented by refusing the devil admittance
into Eden. When the devil was seated comfortably next to the deity--or
perhaps he was standing--he was asked about Job, who had remained true
to God despite the fact that the latter had delivered him up to the
devil. But we will let Jehovah state his own case:
_And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that
there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one
that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his
integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without
cause._ *
* Job ii, 3.
Do you know, reader, why I have put in italics the concluding words in
the above quotation? It is the most terrible text in all the bible. It
is what the lawyers would describe as the most conspicuous instance of
self-incrimination on record. In this passage the Lord of heaven
and earth makes the frightful admission that he did wrong upon the
suggestion of the devil--that he was tempted of the devil to commit a
crime! This is staggering. He also admits that the crime was committed
against a just man, and without cause! We have in this text a most
humiliating picture of the deity--a God obeying the devil! The English
language is inadequate to help express the horror, the pity, the
indignation, the defiance, the scorn, the sorrow which the spectacle of
a God admitting a heinous crime but pleading that the devil moved him to
commit it, provokes in me. If I could weep the world into common sense,
I would do it; if I could laugh these absurdities and immoralities out
of the world's mind and conscience, who would prevent me?
I am really afraid of a God who will take advice from the devil. I am
afraid of a God who will cause a "perfect and upright man" to be ruined
"without cause," just to win a wager from the devil.
To me, the strangest discovery one makes in the bible is that God and
the devil are, to use the nomenclature of the commercial world, business
partners. They meet occasionally to discuss policies and to exchange
views. Each is mindful of the rights of the other. God would rather
see his servant Job ruined than drive the devil out of his presence for
moving him to commit a crime. Which is God and which is the devil?
But let us return to the story: Satan was not willing to grant that
he had lost, until Job had been punished some more. So he asked for
permission to attack Job in his own person:
"Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But
put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he
will curse thee to thy face," * suggested the devil. What did the other
partner say to this? Although he had just admitted that he did wrong
to an innocent man, to a friend, he is willing to do it again, and this
time he consents to be more cruel and unjust than before.
_And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand._**
Like a flash, Satan fell upon Job and smote him "from the sole of his
foot unto his crown." Job became a disgusting heap of prurient and
carious flesh.
_And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down
among the ashes._ ***
* Job ii, 4-5
** Job ii, 6.
*** Job ii, 9.
Thus Job becomes a football between these two gambling divinities. After
losing everything, after being deprived of his sons and daughters, he
himself is brought down by foul sores and boils to the verge of death.
Indeed, death would have been preferable to being the toy and plaything
of Jehovah-Satan. The preachers defend this loose story and call it
inspired, on the ground that it taught Job _patience_. But was there no
saner way of teaching him the lesson of patience?
The bible God plays with fire. His attempt to teach Adam obedience cost
the damnation of the human race and the death of his own son. He almost
tempted Abraham to stick a knife into his own son in trying to make sure
of his faith. He tried Jephtha's loyalty, and it cost the latter the
life of his young daughter; and to teach Job patience, servants, cattle,
sons and daughters--all are slaughtered.
Moreover, if Job was "a perfect and upright man," as the text claims,
what need was there of teaching him patience--and at such a cost, too?
The clergy, lacking the courage to say that the story of God and Satan,
gambling for the soul of Job, is a myth, rack their brains for excuses
and apologies to explain its presence in the Word of God. Nor is it true
that the story was meant to teach us submission to God, whether he sends
good or evil. That is what free-born people would call blasphemy. It is
wrong to submit to evil. It is base to kiss the hand that robs us of our
rights. We do not deserve freedom if we can endure slavery. Justice is
born of the rebellion against wrong, as truth is born of the protest
against error. The Asiatic submits; the European rebels. Of that
rebellion is born civilization. Prometheus, defying the gods, and not
Job, licking the hand that has crushed him, is our inspiration!
I am also aware of the argument of the liberal clergy, that the book of
Job is only a poem. Why not say so, then, in plain print? Why bind an
imaginary composition in the same volume with the "infallible word of
God?" But, even as the first chapter of Genesis was inspired history
until Darwin exposed its untruth, so was the Book of Job inspired
history until criticism showed its inherent immorality. As a play, Job
is one of the most successful in ancient literature. But what is a play
doing in the "Holy Bible"?
But my main object in reciting the story of this Arab sheik was to show
the family resemblance between the two sovereigns, the one of heaven,
the other of hell. In the New Testament, too, Satan figures as a
personage of importance, and not at all as one who has been disarmed and
degraded. On one occasion Jesus and the devil met in the wilderness.
The conversation which took place between them shows the devil was as
independent and resourceful with the junior God as he was with Jehovah.
According to St. Mathew, the devil picked up the Son of God and flew
with him through the air. When he had set him down on the pinnacle of
the temple he told him what he wanted. From there he carried Jesus to an
exceeding high mountain, so high that from its summit "all the kingdoms
of the world" could be seen. * Now a being who could fly through the air
with a god tucked away under his arm is not to be slighted.
* Matthew iv, 1-12.
Satan has gone. Jehovah must follow. Neither can live without the other.