I. God and His Book
|WHEN the deity had finished making his world, the bible says that he
looked his creation all over, and behold, everything that he had made
"was good." He was, according to this report, perfectly pleased with his
work. He was proud of the world he had created, for it was made in his
own image. But in the very next chapter we read that the first woman God
ever made deceived her husband, and the first man deserted his wife, by
throwing the blame of his transgression upon her, instead of coming to
her defense. And the first son ever born to a mother--Cain--turned
out to be a murderer--the murderer of his only brother. And the world
itself, which a moment ago had been pronounced good, became so wicked in
a short time that it had to be drowned. Who would care to be the author
of such a world!
Of course, it will be said that the collapse of God's world was the
devil's fault, but where did _he_ come from? Why was there a devil in
a universe created by God, and in his own image? That is the question
against which all theologies dash themselves to pieces. If the deity
was powerless against the devil, he could, at least, have refrained from
creating a world for the devil to work his mischief in. If you can not
remove the quicksand, would you build a house on it?
Moreover, this throwing the blame upon somebody else is the very tactics
which Adam and Eve resorted to. But did it help them? When Adam was
asked why he ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree, he threw the blame
upon his wife. When the woman was interrogated, she threw the blame upon
the serpent, and now when we ask the "Lord God" why his world went to
pieces so soon after he had pronounced it perfect, he throws the blame
upon the devil. Well, that will not do. If shirking his responsibility
did not save Adam nor his innocent progeny--the human race--why should
it save the deity?
The story of Cain and Abel is the first episode on, earth. The two were
brothers. Abel was a shepherd; Cain, a farmer. Surely they needed each
other, both commercially and socially. According to the bible, there
were altogether only four people in the world, at this time, and,
therefore, from every point of view, it was more than a dastardly crime
to kill one of the members of this precious group.
What was the cause of the hatred which led to the first bloodshed?
Unfortunately these two brothers had a _religion_. But for their
religion they would never have hated one another, nor would murder
have stained the opening pages of history. Cain offered the Lord for a
sacrifice, of the product of his farm; Abel brought to the altar a
head or two of cattle. They were both trying to please the Lord, each
worshiping him according to his light. Ah! but that is not enough; there
is only one worship that is orthodox. All others are taboo. God accepts
Abel's flesh offering, and rejects Cain's vegetables. Then the trouble
begins. The murder of Abel by Cain started the religious persecutions
which have blackened the face of man. To this source may be traced the
inquisitions, the crusaders the wholesale massacres which have made
history a horror and a shudder. The first bloodshed was in the name of
religion. The first murder was committed at the altar of God. It was a
religious difference which defiled with blood the cradle of the human
race. But who was responsible for the first murder in the world? The
deity! Had God been pleased to accept a vegetable offering with as much
pleasure as roasting flesh, or, had he said, "Never mind me; be good to
one another," he would have removed thereby the most powerful motive for
religious persecution. The Cain and Abel story compels us to say that
the first persecutor was the "Lord God" himself.
And how could these two brothers tell that God had accepted one offering
and rejected the other? How can men tell to-day that God likes the
Catholic worship better than the Protestant or the Moslem? Who can
enlighten us on this subject? In the case of Cain and Abel, in all
probability, the flesh offering, being oily or fat, burned readily on
the altar; while the vegetables, being fresh and wet, or covered with
the soil, did not burn as readily, or they smoked instead of going up in
a flame, which natural circumstance was seized upon as a supernatural
revelation, and made the pretext for the most infamous deed on
record--fratricide.
And where did these two brothers get the idea that God was fond either
of flesh or of vegetables? That is an interesting question. In the days
of ignorance and fear, when the crocodile in the river was a god, it was
supposed that the monster had power to hurt people. He must, therefore,
be appeased. The rumor went abroad that the monster was very fond of
little children. "Let us throw him a child for his breakfast," suggests
a priest. The suggestion is followed. With prayers, incantations,
prostrations--with incense, and chants, on stated occasions, the
crocodile is presented a child. To bribe the evil powers, to put them in
a friendly frame of mind by gifts of food and drink, of song and prayer,
in order to turn their wrath into compassion--such was the beginning of
human sacrifices. At first the gods were very particular. They demanded
human flesh for their breakfast, and not until man was sufficiently
strong to make his own terms, did the gods consent to accept the flesh
of the animal.
The Deity Demands Human Flesh
|THE object of human and animal sacrifices in the bible, as in all
the older religions, was to placate the deity. The Jews would not have
offered Jehovah the flesh of man and beast, did they not believe that
their god was not only exceedingly fond of roast meats, but that this
was the only way to secure any favors from him. When an oriental desired
a favor of his king or chieftain, he approached him with many gifts, as
well as with prostrations and compliments. The way to be admitted to
an audience with Jehovah was to praise him loudly, and to offer him the
best part of the spoils.
The psychological phase of the institution of sacrifices and worship is
very instructive. Even as a child tries to put its father in an amiable
state of mind before presenting its petition, the believer's motive in
coming forward with precious gifts--the flesh even of his own little
ones--or with elaborate and highly finished compliments, is to throw
a spell upon the deity, to charm him, as it were, into granting the
petitioner his request. The savage actually believed that the savour of
burning flesh, and the sight of palpitating blood shed at the altars,
so delighted or intoxicated the deity that almost any favor could be
wrested from him while in that condition. The object of the soft hymns
and cajoling prayers in the churches to-day have the same purpose for
which the sacrifices and dances of the barbarians were instituted. How
to charm the deity, to please and engage his services, is the end and
aim of every kind of worship.
The word gospel is a combination of good and spell. To read it, is to
become spellbound, according to the teaching of the churches. In the
same sense, a prayer-book is a collection of _spells_, to be used in
approaching the deity. If we desire rain from him, we must use the
petition, or the spell, expressly prepared for that purpose; if we
desire good harvests, or success in war, or the removal from the land
of the plague or infidelity, we must use other spells. "We ask it all
in Jesus' name," is the way nearly all prayers close. That is one of the
irresistible spells. "Ask it in my name," says Jesus, because the belief
was current that there was magic in a name. That is to say, some names
were spells. The word charm comes from the Latin _carmen_. But that is
also the word for song or hymn. To sing to a god is to charm him, or
bind him with a spell. The purpose of the chants is to _enchant_ the
deity, that is to say, to intoxicate him with praise, as the savage
tried to intoxicate him with his roasts and reeking altars.
The service of the gods was very much more expensive in olden times than
now. Men had to part with their own children to keep on good terms with
the powers above. But, as often explained, the secular interests of
life always act as a check on the follies and absurdities of religion.
Instead of throwing his children to the crocodile, or burning them alive
upon the altar, the natural affections prevailed upon man to experiment
with animal flesh as an offering to his gods. As man developed in power
and independence, he compelled the gods to draw up a new contract, or
a new testament, which not only forbade human, and later also animal,
sacrifices, but allowed an offering of fruit, flowers and vegetables to
take the place of flesh and blood at the altars. In each new bargain,
the crocodile was the loser and man the gainer. The history of progress
is the history of the successive bargains or covenants or testaments
between man and the crocodile, or man and the powers he fears, each new
contract adding to the rights of man and clipping from the claims of
the crocodile. Is not this very interesting? What the Christians or Jews
call a progressive religion simply means that God is satisfied with
less now, or demands less now, than he was wont to in the days of man's
ignorance and impotence.
The yoke of Jehovah is very much easier and not at all so pinching as
formerly. His ten thousand categorical commandments, his taboos, his
long list of ceremonial observances of new moons and Sabbaths, and
the mysteries and dogmas which had to be accepted upon penalty of
excommunication and damnation, have been one after the other discarded
as non-essentials, with the result that one may now join either the
Christian or the Jewish church upon one's own terms--and this they call
being _liberal_.
What a blessing has Rationalism been even to the churches! It has
saved them from shedding the blood of their children, saved them their
domestic animals, and saved also the waste of their garden products, for
the gods now get nothing but "words" for an offering. The deity, who
at one time turned away from Cain's vegetable and fruit offering, and
preferred the smell of roasting flesh, is now glad enough to get a few
verbal compliments once a week.
But in the bible, God has not yet heard of "reformed" Judaism or of
"liberal" Christianity, and hence he will accept nothing less than
human and animal sacrifices. "Let me have blood, and more blood," is the
refrain of revelation. How many of the believers in the bible are aware
that God demanded by the mouth of Moses the first born of his people?
Not only did he slay the first born of Egypt, but he also insisted upon
having for himself the first fruits of the womb, as well as of the land
of the chosen people.
_Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the
Lord of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his
possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy
unto the Lord. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be
redeemed; but shall surely be put to death._ *
* Leviticus xxvii, 28,29.
And Nehemiah relates how the faithful Jews, those who did not follow the
example of the heathen, continued under all circumstances to bring "the
firstfruits of our ground, and the firstfruits of all fruits of all
trees, year by year, unto the house of the Lord: Also the _first born of
our sons_ (daughters not acceptable), and of our cattle, as is written
in the law." *
* Nehemiah x, 35,36.
And this is the book that must be circulated by the millions as the
greatest and best in all the world! Even as the Old Testament demanded
the sacrifice of the sons of the people, the New Testament demands the
sacrifice of the Son of God. Look at the animal about to be bound and
made ready for the knife of the priest. See its struggles and hear its
moan! But that is nothing compared to the piteous wail of the human
child torn from its parents' arms to be offered as a sacrifice to the
crocodile! Nay, behold the agony of Christ on the cross and listen to
his heartrending cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" If
God failed to hear thee, O Jesus! humanity has heard thy prayer, and
there shall be no more murder on the altars of the crocodile!
The story of how Abraham was tempted, as it is said, to sacrifice his
son to Jehovah, is well known. Abraham did not object at all. Neither
was he shocked, or surprised, when commanded to kill his own son. It
does not seem to have been an unusual thing for Jehovah to demand human
flesh for his diet. Abraham started to do as his religion required of
him. That is my complaint against religion. It makes a man willing to
commit any crime under heaven in the name of God! And there is not
an American clergyman who has the courage to say that such a
commandment--requiring a father to butcher his son--should never have
been given, or that, having been given, it should be stricken out of the
bible. And had Abraham been a man, he would have become an out and
out Atheist before he would have tied his little boy hand and foot and
pulled out his knife!
But the clergyman is on hand with his excuses. He has no arguments, he
has only _excuses_. God was only trying Abraham's faith, he tells us.
Indeed! Did not the deity know in advance how Abraham would act under
the circumstances? "Is it not true," ask again, the defenders of the
bible, "that Abraham was not allowed to destroy his son, Isaac?" Yes,
but God allowed Jephthah to kill his _daughter!_ The story of this
unfortunate father is told in the following verses:
_And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without
fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be,
that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I
return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's,
and I will offer it up for a burnt offering._
Jehovah accepted the bargain and gave Jephthah the victory.
_And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter
came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only
child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and
said, Alas, my daughter!_
Then the poor man explains to his child the vow he had made unto the
Lord. The young woman was willing to be offered up as a "burnt offering"
unto the Lord, if she could have two months' time to wander about and
bewail her sad fate.
_And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto
her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed._ *
* Judges xi, 30-39.
Why should Americans have anything to do with an Asiatic cult which
tempts a father to kill the son that had called him _papa_, or which
actually permits a father to burn alive his only child--the child
that ran to greet him with a kiss? There was a good excuse to burn the
clothes, or the timbrels with which Jephtha's daughter ran to meet her
father, instead of the young lady herself. A good argument could have
been made that the first object the returning general saw was the
timbrels in her hand, but the Lord would not accept anything less than
human flesh in those days.
There are many other examples in the "Holy Bible" as objectionable as
those already mentioned. Frequently the only way to turn away the "wrath
of God" from the people, was to hang a few heads against the sun, or
massacre a whole community, children included, or to draw the sword
upon the members of one's own family. What does the reader think of
all this--in the bible! Why are not men ashamed to print and distribute
twenty million copies a year of a book so foreign to the best feelings
of our age and country? Why should such a book be forced into our homes
and schools, or placed in the hands of our little ones immediately after
they have left their cradles? Why should there be a copy of this book in
every room of every hotel in the land?
Before dismissing this subject it would be well to point out that the
long practice of human and animal sacrifices is responsible for the
cruelty to children and animals in modern times. Humanity to our dumb
neighbors has not been one of the distinguished virtues of either Jews
or Christians, and though we live in the twentieth century we have to
support societies specially devoted to preventing cruelty to children.
In the same way associations have been organized to protect animals
against mistreatment.
That the bible gives little thought to the rights of animals may be
inferred not only from St. Paul's rather brutal exclamation, "Does God
care for the oxen?" but also from the practice among the Jews to this
day, of tormenting an animal before killing him for food. In the _Humane
Review_, an eye witness of the Jewish method of slaughter to provide
_Kosher_ meat for the market gives the following description of the
operation:
_As soon as the animal has been brought into the slaughtering chamber it
is thrown to the ground either by attaching a rope or chain to the legs
and then suddenly hauling on it, or by twisting the head upward and
sideways by means of an appliance attached to the horns and passing
under the jaw, in such a way that the animal loses its balance and falls
to the ground, in doing which it not infrequently injures itself so that
there is loss of blood or fracture of horn or rib. The animal is then
rendered powerless by having its feet bound together, or the tail drawn
through the hind legs forward and upward, while one of the slaughtermen
places his foot on the animal's stomach and prevents its attempting to
offer resistance. The head is then forced down so that it rests on the
horns, and the nose is pressed against the floor. This can only be done
by the exertion of great force on the part of the slaughtermen, with
corresponding resistance, involving terror and suffering on that of
the animal. The Jewish official who performs the act of slaughter then
passes his hand over the animal's tightly drawn throat, and mutters the
so-called "Schechita" prayer. He then cuts the animal's throat right
through the vertebrae, drawing the knife to and fro in so doing. The
blood which spurts from the severed arteries is scattered like rain by
the breath which escapes from the lungs, and as the breath is drawn in
it enters the gullet and lungs with a loud rattling noise. The gaping
wound yawns wide, the animal opens and closes its eyes, rolling them to
and fro, and opens and shuts its mouth as though gasping for breath.
If the flow of blood from the arteries in the neck ceases, one of the
slaughtermen--not the Jewish official--draws them out, cuts away part of
them with the surrounding tissues, and throws the severed portion away.
And while all this is going on the animal is alive and conscious of pain
and terror._
II. The Portrait of God in the Bible
|TO prove the charge that the bible God is quite unfit for modern
purposes, we have only to open the "holy" book at almost any page to
find such positive commandments as the following emanating from him:
_Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and
spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and
sheep, camel and ass._*
Slaughter on a small scale, or at intervals, does not seem to satisfy
the bible deity. Like a vortex, he cries for more, more.
_But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give
thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the
Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the
Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee._ **
* I Samuel, xv, 3.
** Deuteronomy xx, 16, 17.
We would never have thought of calling attention to these gory pages
but for the protection of our homes and schools, which the clergy insist
should be placed under bible influence and instruction. And they have
all the money and prestige in the world to force this book into our
homes, and will do so if they catch the modern world napping for a
moment.
It is not only the heathen that are put to the edge of the sword, but
the Jews themselves are repeatedly slaughtered on the flimsiest pretext.
When the people expressed any disagreement or complaint, or offered any
criticism, they were "consumed" by the fire of the Lord. * When the Jews
longed for a change of diet, and remembered the better food they enjoyed
in the land of Egypt, the anger of the Lord was kindled:
_And there went forth a wind from the Lord, and brought quails from
the sea, and let them fall by the camp.... And while the flesh was
yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the Lord was
kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very
great plague._ **
When he was less angry, he "sent fiery serpents among the people,
and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died." *** On one
occasion nothing less than the massacre of five hundred thousand of
his own chosen people would restore his good temper. **** Is there any
strong reason why a book containing such demoralizing stories should be
translated into every language and carried into every country under the
sun? And is it not time for the American people to shut this "holy" book
out of their homes, as it is already shut out of their public schools?
* Numbers xi, I.
** Numbers, xxi, 6.
*** Numbers xi, 4-6, 31-33.
**** II Chronicles, xiii, 17.
Not only did the commandments to kill and destroy proceed from the
deity, but the bible represents him as angry when his agents show any
pity or weakness in carrying out his designs. Saul is dethroned for
sparing the cattle of the people he had been sent by the Lord to
destroy. But Saul spared the best of the cattle, after he had destroyed
all the men, women and children "to sacrifice unto the Lord." By doing
this he had hoped to please the Lord, but not so. "It repented me," says
Jehovah, "that I have set up Saul to be king." David, on the other hand,
was after "God's own heart," because he was made of sterner stuff. As
this bible character is often held up as a pattern, and as children
are expected to love David as one of the best and holiest men in the
bible--of whom Jesus was descended--it may not be amiss to recite a few
of the stories in which this "man of God" figured so prominently. In
David we see the picture of his God. My hand really trembles as I write
the following verse:
_And he (David) brought out the people that were in it, and cut them
with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David
with all the cities of the children of Ammon._ *
Could anything be more repugnant to civilized races than such
unnecessary inhumanity? We are trying to introduce a milder form of
capital punishment than hanging, but surely it is not the bible that has
softened our manners. I have so much faith in the saving common sense of
the average American or European that I believe if they would only read
the bible, and become better acquainted with it, they would not
hesitate to do all in their power, even if it involved much personal
inconvenience and loss, to break forever the power of these Semitic
tales of war and plunder. Is there no more courage left in the world?
"Oh, but nobody believes in these parts of the bible any more." Very
well, then, why print and sell them at the rate of twenty million copies
a year? But let us continue the story of David:
_And he... put them under saws... and under axes of iron, and made them
pass through the brick-kiln_. **
* I Chronicles, xx, 3.
** II Samuel, xii, 31.
"And made them pass through the brick-kiln."
Well! and is that in the bible? If the Lord could not prevent such
barbarity, could he not have prevented, at least, the publishing of such
criminal details? The American public is about to pass a law prohibiting
the newspapers from entering into the details of the daily murders and
other horrible crimes they report. It is claimed, and justly, that such
particular descriptions of acts of cruelty and shame familiarize the
young, especially, with the worst phases of life, and by suggestion lead
them astray. But the bible sins in this respect more flagrantly than
any modern journal, not excepting the yellowest of them. Written, on the
whole, by barbarians who lived in an age of brigandage and massacre, the
bible not only gives details of crime which would not be tolerated in
any modern publication, but, what is infinitely more injurious to
the cause of morality, it sets upon unmentionable acts of cruelty and
debauchery the stamp of divine approval. Once more, I repeat that I
would never have devoted any labor to the discussion of the contents of
the bible, if it were not that this is the great idol of the civilized
world to-day--this the "holy" book, the reading of which it is the
desire of the churches to make compulsory in the home and the school,
and this the word of God without which, it is claimed, there can be no
morality!
Even as there is a movement to purge the daily newspapers of offensive
details of lawlessness and crime, there is also a movement to clear
the billboards of objectionable displays and advertisements, and the
theaters of such plays and moving pictures as offend good taste and
corrupt the manners of young and old.
Still another worthy effort is in the direction of omitting from
children's schoolbooks descriptions of war and carnage, in order to
win them over to the nobler cause of peace. But why do not good men and
women, who have bravely undertaken these needed reforms, try their hand
also on the Jewish-Christian bible? I challenge these reformers, who
would expunge from children's text-books the descriptions of battles and
slaughters, to find a single passage in the secular history of Europe
and America which can compare with the descriptions of David's divine
method of warfare.
_And thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon._ *
* II Samuel xii, 31.
"Unto all the cities." Goodness! It is not only upon one or two special
offenders that these atrocities are practiced, but upon "all the
cities." And think of the state of heart and mind of a man that could
be such a monster! But there is something more appalling still: think of
the head and heart of the people of the twentieth century who dare
not denounce such barbarities because they are in the bible, and
who translate these details into every language under the sun for
edification in morals!
Of course, there are also many "good things" in the bible, but if all
the good editorials in newspapers can not atone for or justify the
publication of offensive matter in other columns of the paper, why
should the "good things in the bible" be quoted to cover up or excuse
such terrible passages as those quoted above? And if it be said that
neither Jews nor Christians approve of all the things in the bible, I
ask, again, why then do they go on translating and disseminating the
book without expunging the objectionable parts? If they have the courage
to so rewrite the history of nations, or report the news of the world,
as to omit all wanton descriptions of brutal and vulgar conduct, why
have they not the courage to put the bible through the same purifying
process? Who or what are they afraid of?
A Bible Saint
|THE story of David, which is placed in children's hands for their
edification, is really that of a brigand, the personnel of whose
followers is given in the following words:
_And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and
every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him; and he
(David) became a captain over them: and there were with him about four
hundred men._ *
Led by their "holy" captain, they went about to murder and plunder.
Hiding themselves in caves and mountain fastnesses, they became a terror
to people laboring in the fields or traveling from place to place. These
freebooters, naturally enough, preferred going with David to staying at
home to be sued for unpaid bills. So "every one that was in debt" joined
the robber band. The thoroughness with which David and his marauders did
their work won for them the favor of Jehovah.
_And David saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring tidings to Gath,
saying, Lest they should tell on us, saying,
So did David._ **
* I Samuel xxii, 2.
** Samuel xxvii, 11.
David never did anything without first consulting the Lord. He was not
only cruel, but he was also a coward, for unless his God positively
assured him of victory, he would not fight. The way he ascertained
the mind of the Lord shows him to have been as superstitious as he was
unmerciful and cowardly. And this is the Saint David--the flower
of Judaism and Christianity combined! Religion has so perverted the
judgment of men that they admire in the bible what they would despise
anywhere else.
_And David said to Abiathar, the priest... I pray thee, bring me hither
the ephod. And Abiathar brought thither the ephod to David. And David
enquired of the Lord, saying, Shall I pursue after this troop? Shall
I overtake them? And he answered him, Pursue: for thou shalt surely
overtake them, and without fail recover all. _*
An _ephod_ was a cloak made according to the instructions of God, and
worn by the priest. David consulted the cloak, and the cloak answered
him. Perhaps there was some one in the cloak; at any rate the cloak
spoke. David evidently had other gods besides Jehovah and the _ephod_,
whom he kept at his home for consultation. On one occasion his wife
Michal placed one of these domestic gods in David's bed, to mislead
his pursuers. ** But his gods, big or small, did not object to his
barbarities:
_Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the
Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and gave
them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in
law._ ***
* I Samuel xxx, 7,8.
** I Samuel xix, 13.
*** I Samuel xviii, 27.
Do parents desire their children to read such impure stories?
David puts the scalping Indians to shame. On one occasion, after God had
greatly blessed him and given him the throne of Israel, David, who had
already hundreds of wives and concubines, caught sight of the wife of
one of his soldiers. To possess her, he coolly planned, and, without
scruple, caused to be executed one of the meanest murders on record,
that of the husband of the woman he coveted. The only person punished
for this act of David was the innocent babe born of the crime. What
justice!
From this time on, David became, if anything, more offensive in his
conduct than ever before. Having escaped punishment for the foul murder
of Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba, he caused to be hanged seven of the
sons and grandsons of his ancient rival, Saul, on the pretext that
the three years' famine in the land would terminate by this sacrifice.
Indeed, he had consulted the Lord before hanging these innocent youths,
with the result that, immediately after the seven corpses fell to the
ground "before the Lord," the famine ceased. * It is curious how the
deity always agrees with a powerful king or emperor. Kaiser, czar, and
sultan always obey God, because he never tells them to do anything they
do not want to do, and because he always approves of what they desire to
do. Kings and emperors have the deity under perfect control.
* II Samuel xxi, 1-9.
Such was David's unrelenting spite that, when on his death-bed, he
extracted a promise from his successor to the throne never to forgive
or to show mercy to any one that had ever offended him. Mentioning his
enemy by name, "his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood,"
he hissed, as he expired. * It would be perfectly safe to say that there
is not another character of equal prominence in history, with so many
vices and so few virtues, as that of David, concerning whom it is said
that "he was a man after God's own heart," and to whom is given the
highest praise in the bible by the deity himself:
_My servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with
all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes. _**
* I Kings ii, 9.
** I Kings xiv, 8.
III. The Bible and Judaism
|IT is in examining the fundamental teachings of Judaism that we
discover the blighting influence of the bible upon Jewish thought and
conduct. In all the Old Testament there is not even a suggestion that it
is a duty to love the Gentile, or to treat him justly at least. Judaism
believed the world outside Israel lost, and _rejoiced_ in it.
To Judaism the Gentile was not worth saving. A stranger might of his
own accord, seeing the light of Israel, unite himself with the people of
God, but it was no part of the Jewish religion to concern itself about
the balance of mankind. Moses Mendelsohn, in an otherwise admirable
letter to the celebrated French theologian Lavater, who had sought to
convert him to Christianity, says that the religion of the Jew takes no
thought of the salvation of people outside Israel:
"The religion of my fathers does not wish to be extended... Our rabbis
unanimously teach that the written and oral laws which form conjointly
our revealed religion are obligatory on our nation only." The bible then
does not concern itself about enlightening any other people than the
Jews. Not only all attempts to spread abroad the truths of revelation
are strictly forbidden, but the Gentile who, of his own accord even,
asks to share with the Jew the blessings of his religion is to be
rejected. "Our rabbis," continues Mendelsohn in this same letter, "...
enjoin us to dissuade by forcible remonstrances every one who comes
forward to be converted." Evidently, then, Judaism was never meant for
humanity at large. It was the religion of a tribe. People speak of
the mission or the message of Judaism; but how could a religion have a
message for mankind when it recognized no mankind outside Israel? Was
not the doctrine of a chosen people, which is the _spina dorsi_ of the
bible, the negation of human brotherhood? Was not its severe prohibition
of intermarriage calculated to keep the Jew separate and an alien in
every land?
The bible-writers were shrewd enough to know that nothing would end
their régime, or overthrow all race and creed wars by which that
authority was maintained, quicker than intermarriage, and hence they did
not hesitate to denounce it as an act of national suicide. It is a pity
that after many hundred years of residence among Gentiles, the hold of
the bible on the Jews in respect to getting into intimate relations with
people not of their own faith and race is as firm as ever. In a Jewish
catechism, in use in their Sunday-schools, we read:
_Q. What other ordinances has God made to prevent our falling into sin?
A. Those which forbid our associating with bad men or intermarrying with
wicked and idolatrous nations._
The child is thus taught to look upon all non-Jews as "wicked and
idolatrous," and forming relations with them as "falling into sin."
This is supported by a text from the bible. "Neither shalt thou make
marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son,"
etc. *
* Deuteronomy vii, 3.
A religion which forbids a man to marry the woman he loves because she
is of a different faith is a separatist religion.
Another question in this Jewish catechism reads: "Are we commanded still
to keep ourselves distinct from other nations?"
To which the child answers, "Assuredly," etc. Observe the word "still,"
in the question, which shows the old law is as binding as ever. How can
the rabbis justify such unfriendly teaching? And how reconcile it with
their protests against anti-Semitism? If the Gentile will not take the
Jew into his club, the Jew shuts his home to the Gentile. But why should
not a Jew marry a Gentile? Moses and Ezra will not allow it? And why
should the twentieth century be bound by Moses and Ezra? How can God
be a universal father, and all peoples his children, if it is a crime
deserving of death, as the bible plainly announces in many places, for
one of his children to love another not of the same faith? This is the
negation of brotherhood in the holiest sense of the word. The Catholic
who denies salvation to all outside his church is not worse than the
orthodox Jew. The Hebrew who has the courage to marry the woman he
loves, in spite of all the theological fulminations of Moses and Ezra,
does more to bring Israel into intimate fellowship with the world of
to-day and more to unite all races in the bonds of brotherhood than all
the rabbis of Jewry. The way to free Israel is to educate the Jew
away from the rabbi, and, _entre nous_, rabbi is only another name for
priest.
The bible evidently does not believe either in equality or in
brotherhood. Will it be right to allow the teachers in our public
schools, where all races and creeds are wrapped in the folds of one
flag, to read from a book that teaches the boys and girls, who will be
the men and women of the future, to hate one another? And yet the bible
is guilty, we regret to say, of that very crime. Not only does it make
it a capital crime for a Jew to love a Gentile, but he must not even be
"on the square" with him.
_Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother.... Unto a stranger thou
mayest lend upon usury._ *
Evidently the stranger is not a brother, else why does it say again:
_Of the children of the strangers... shall ye buy... they shall be your
bondmen forever: but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall
not rule one over another with vigor._ **
and again:
_Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give
it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou
mayest sell it unto an alien._ ***
* Deuteronomy xxiii, 19, 20.
** Leviticus xxv, 45, 46.
*** Deuteronomy xiv, 21.
To give or to sell putrid flesh to the Gentile, or the _Goim_, is that
the way to educate and prepare the world for brotherhood?
The defenders of the bible have often pleaded that the wars of
extermination in the bible had for their object the preservation of the
chosen people from idolatrous associations. To keep pure the religion
revealed from above it was necessary, it is argued, to kill and destroy
the surrounding races and forbid the Jews under severe penalties from
entering into close relations with them. But how does selling bad meat
to the Gentiles help to preserve the purity of a religion? How does
enslaving the stranger contribute to the same end? If it is association
with the Gentile that is feared, why were the Jews permitted to buy
slaves of them and live with them in the same house or field? And how
does lending money upon usury to the stranger help to protect the divine
religion from contamination? Candidly speaking, it is difficult to
see how anybody with a touch of the spirit of love and humanity in his
breast can believe in the Old Testament. The fall of the bastile did
not mark the dawn of a better day for France more than the fall of the
bible will for both Jews and Gentiles.
One of the most hopeful signs of the day is that the cultivated Jew
has completely broken away from the religion of his ancestors. The
synagogues are even emptier than the churches. Of course, this has
greatly alarmed the orthodox element. Recently the junior rabbi of
the wealthiest New York synagogue, * in a sermon, on the first day of
Passover, publicly attacked the Rationalists among the Jews, and held
them responsible for the disrepute into which has fallen the religion of
the bible:
* Temple Emanuel.
_The old tree that brought forth many beauteous blossoms is almost
stripped of its foliage, and one by one the golden autumn leaves are
falling as the older men and women of the congregation pass to their
rest. There is no springtime here. It is the winter that is before us.
For we have no youth, no young Jews and Jewesses to take the place of
the elders. Let each family of the congregation ask itself where the
young are, and the answer will be--not within the synagogue, but outside
of it, indifferent to it; and faithless and disloyal to Judaism!_
Continuing his wail, the rabbi said:
_Look among you! Your sons and your daughters, many of them, are
marrying outside of their people. They are rearing their children with
all modern accomplishments, but with no religion. Their homes are bare
of piety and of the spirit of prayer. Some of them perhaps are engaged
in charitable work, but the work of charity is a negative work at the
best, and with our young men and women it is very seldom carried on in
the spirit of Jewish brotherhood, but rather in a spirit of remote pity
mingled with disdain. Are you satisfied with this result of your reform
of Judaism?_
Of course, when this rabbi speaks of religion he means Judaism; and
when he speaks of brotherhood, he means "Jewish brotherhood." It is as
impossible to make Judaism tolerant, as it is Christianity. Fortunately,
many of the fellow Jews of this rabbi did not hesitate to combat a
teaching which aims to hold the Jews back while the whole world is
moving forward. Why should the Jew remain an Asiatic in religious
thought and practice? It may be to the profit of the rabbi to keep the
Jew tied to the apron strings of the past, and to prevent his exodus
from the wilderness of Sinai, but what spells prosperity for the rabbi
or the priest spells ruin for the people. Look at Ireland. The priests
wear gold chains and live in palatial residences--they increase and
multiply--while Ireland is depopulated and wasted to the bone. Not until
both Catholic and Jew dare to disobey their priests, do they begin
to prosper and enjoy the liberties and blessings of life. As a Jewish
scholar expresses it, the question is not whether or not the Jews shall
embrace Christianity or remain Jews, but whether they shall be Asiatic
or American.
IV. Bible and Talmud
|ANOTHER way of showing how the Old Testament has injured the thought
and conduct of the Jewish race--as it has of all other races which
have accepted its authority, although, not to the same extent, for the
obvious reason that they have wandered from its teaching more freely
and daringly than the Jews--would be by examining Jewish religious
literature, especially the Talmud.
The rank and file of the orthodox Jews regard the Talmud with almost as
great a reverence as the Old Testament. Even by advanced rabbis it is
regarded as the best commentary on Mosaic morals and ritual. The Talmud
is to the Jews what the decisions and interpretations of church councils
are to the Catholics. The Talmud has been called the "Revelation on
the Lip," that is to say, the unwritten word of God. For an intelligent
understanding of Judaism, a knowledge of the Talmud is as indispensable
as that of the Old Testament. We will make a few quotations here to
show that the Talmud goes even beyond the Old Testament, if that were
possible, in regarding the Gentile as an enemy, instead of as a brother.
Many among the Jews are as ignorant of the contents of the Talmud,
as many among the Christians are of the contents of the bible. Let me
reproduce a few of the Talmudic texts:
_If the ox of an Israelite bruise the ox of a Gentile, the Israelite is
exempt from paying damages; but should the ox of a Gentile bruise the ox
of an Israelite, the Gentile is bound to recompense him in full._ *
If one finds lost property in a locality where the majority are
Israelites, he is bound to proclaim it, but he is not bound to do so if
the majority be Gentiles. **
If one who intends to kill a Gentile, he slay an Israelite... he shall
be free. ***
An alien forfeits the right to his own property in favor of the Jews.
****
Rabbi Shemuel says advantage may be taken of the mistakes of a Gentile.
He once bought a gold plate as a copper of a Gentile for four zouzim,
and then cheated him out of one zouz in the bargain. Rabbi Cahana
says that he swindled a Gentile, while the Gentile assured him that he
confidently trusted to his honesty. (v)
It is also expressly urged (Bava Kama, fol. 113, col. 1 ), to resort
to false and adroit pretexts to secure the acquittal of a guilty Jew.
Compare this from the "people of God" with the following from a Pagan
Poet: =
``` _If ever called
```To give thy witness in a dubious case,
```Though Phalaris himself should bid thee lie
```On pain of torture in his flaming bull,
```Disdain to barter innocence for life,_
```To which life owes its luster and its worth.(vi)=
* Talmud, Bava Kame, fol. 38, col. 1.
** Bava Metzia, fol. 24, col. 1.
*** Sanhédrin, fol. 78, col. 2.
**** Bava Kama, fol. 38, col. 1.
v Bava Kama, fol. 118, col. 2.
vi Juvenal, Sat. 8,1,80.
Doctor Edersheim quotes the following from the Talmud:
_The best of the Gentiles kill; the best among serpents, crush its
head._
Now this is the book which is to the orthodox Jew in Poland and Russia
what the Pope is to the Italian and Spanish peasantry. That it is
binding upon the conscience of every believing Jew may be inferred from
the following:
_Whosoever transgresses any of the sayings of the scribes is guilty of
death._ *
The Talmud with its twelve large folio volumes, represents the national
literature of the Jews for a long period of time. What its worth is,
aside from the few scattered passages quoted above, may be seen from the
following estimate:
_But yet I venture to say that it would be impossible to find less
wisdom, less eloquence and less high morality, imbedded in a vaster bulk
of what is utterly valueless to mankind--to say nothing of those parts
of it which are indelicate and even obscene--than in any other national
literature of the same extent._ **
* Eiruvin, fol. 21, col. 2.
** Dean Farrar, in A Talmudic Miscellany.
But what Canon Farrar says of the Talmud could with equal truth be said
of the bulk of the bible. The Jews could ask for no better illustration
of the baneful influence of the bible upon their national literature for
long centuries than the worthless character of the Talmudic writings.
It would have been a real miracle for the Jews to have developed a great
literature, or to have created a great civilization like that of the
Hellens or the Latins, with an infallible bible, and its offspring, the
Talmud, blocking their progress on every side. It is interesting to note
that the only races of antiquity which blossomed morally, as well as
intellectually, are those which had no _revelation_ to hamper their free
movements or to stunt their growth. The unfortunate Jews went through
life carrying the burden of Jehovah. The Greeks made sport of their
gods; Jehovah made sport of the Jews.
If in modern times the Jews have produced first-class scholars in nearly
every branch of the activities of the mind, it is because, like the
glorious Spinoza, the heretic Jew who was cursed and expelled from the
synagogue, they have divorced barren Judaism and "taken for spouse"
science--the only redeemer that redeems. I sincerely hope--and there are
many signs that this hope will be realized in the not distant
future--that even as the French after centuries of submission to Rome
threw off its yoke and came out of Catholicism into modern thought--not
a few individuals only, but the best part of the nation--government and
all; and as Spain, the most Catholic country in the world, is preparing
to follow the example of France; and as noble little Portugal has just
reasoned and voted itself out of the papacy into freedom of thought and
action, I earnestly hope that the Jews, too, after untold centuries of
intellectual bondage to an Asiatic religion, which is inimical to
culture and humanity, will come out of the synagogue _en masse_, thereby
registering their protest against both bible and Talmud, and proving, as
the French have done, for instance, that they are great enough to change
their religion.
The fear that the decline of Judaism will bring about national
disintegration is without foundation. If the Jew is an American in
America, an Englishman in England, a German in Germany--how can his
withdrawal from Judaism affect his nationality? Is Judaism the name of
a nation or of a religion? It is argued that the Jews are compelled to
cling to one another, and to keep together in a body, because of the
general prejudice against them. Will I be forgiven if I were to say that
Judaism is largely responsible for this fearful prejudice. Is there a
text in bible or Talmud, which any rabbi could quote, to prove that Jew
and Gentile should love and respect one another and dwell together in
fraternal relations, taking and giving in marriage, as though they were
one people? Produce such a text! And if there be not, is it any wonder
that the Gentile, the world over, and in all the ages, has looked upon
the Jew as an alien? It is not true that the cause of the prejudice
against the Jew is the charge that his ancestors crucified Christ. That
is a foolish argument. It is invented by the rabbis to throw dust into
the eyes of inquirers. Then why did the ancient Romans, long before
Christ, entertain a prejudice against the Jews? The Latin authors
explained the reason for the prejudice: It was the religious scruple of
the Jew against mingling cordially and honestly with people other than
his own. Judaism shut up the Jew in his shell. To come in contact with a
non-Jew, to treat him, in every respect, as a brother, was blasphemy. Is
it any wonder that Cicero, writing about the Jews, said that the Romans
were better acquainted with the Hindus who lived thousands of miles
away, than with the Jews who lived next door to them? It was the
exclusiveness of the Jew which created and which, alas, prevents from
dying, the prejudice against them. It is far from my purpose to
contend that this is the only source of the ill-feeling between Jew and
Christian, but I am confident that were the Jews to abandon Judaism, an
Asiatic religion which will not assimilate modern thought, and abandon
also such rites and ceremonies which are unbecoming to a civilized
people, and enter into the most intimate domestic relations with
their neighbors, in a few generations the ugly sectarian and racial
prejudices, lacking their daily nourishment, will waste away and die.
"Ah, but if we do that, we will lose our Judaism," says the rabbi. Keep
your Judaism, if you prefer it to humanity. Of course, the Christians,
too, must outgrow their exclusive religion. But my point is that the
Christians, as in France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, and America are
coming out of the old faiths _en masse_, while there is as yet no such
definite movement among the Jews. True enough, here and there one meets
a Jew who has all but repudiated Judaism. As a representative of
this class is the writer of the article on Judaism in _Chambers'
Encyclopedia_--Doctor Krauskopf, of Philadelphia. This gentleman almost
completely strips Judaism of all its biblical and Talmudic features.
The program put forth by him is of so very radical a character as
hardly to deserve the title of Judaism. It comes near leaving out
supernaturalism altogether.
"We discard," says Doctor Krauskopf, "the belief in a God who is a man
magnified, who has his abode somewhere in the interstellar spaces. We
discard the belief that the bible was written by God, or by man under
the immediate dictation of God, and that its teachings are therefore
infallible.... We discard the belief in the coming of a human Messiah
who will lead us back to Palestine, establish us as the rulers of the
world, and make all nations tributaries to us. We discard the belief
in bodily resurrection, hell-torments, Paradisian rewards, prophecy,
superstitions, all biblical and rabbinical beliefs, rites and ceremonies
and institutions, which neither elevate nor sanctify our lives." *
Another step, and Judaism will be swallowed up in Rationalism.
Will Judaism take that other step? The Jew will; but I fear that Judaism
will not. Like Christianity and every other form of organized religion,
Judaism is too aged to put forth new shoots. Abandon it, is my earnest
suggestion. It has hurt the Jew. Judaism has made the Jew narrow
and anti-social. At a Jewish Congress held at Basle in 1898, Doctor
Mandelstam, Professor in the University of Kiev, said: "The Jews
energetically reject the idea of fusion with other nationalities, and
cling firmly to their historical hope--that is, of a world empire."
Again, Dr. Leopold Kahn, the Vienna rabbi, in 1901 declared that "the
Jew will never be able to assimilate himself; he will never adopt
the customs and ways of other peoples. The Jew remains Jew under all
circumstances. Every assimilation is purely exterior." **
* On the Progress of Liberty of Thought, C. E. Plumpter,
page 71.
* Ethical World, August, 1911.
The educated Jews everywhere should combat such bigotry. If the Jewish
people desire universal respect and equality, they must fuse with other
people, which they can only do by coming out of the ancient oriental
wilderness. To say that the jews energetically reject the idea of
"fusion with other nationalities," is to expose them to the charge that
they are the sworn enemies of the human race. Rabbis, beware!
During the recent Race Congress in London, Mr. H. Snell spoke as follows
on this important question:
_Regarding the question from the standpoint of ethical internationalism,
it is not the Jew, but Judaism, that is at fault. As a citizen pursuing
his daily avocation, sharing in the duties and responsibilities of the
common life, the Jew is the equal of his English neighbor, and should be
so regarded. He is a reliable business man, a loyal comrade and a good
friend. The Jew in the synagogue is a totally different matter. It is
the curse of organized religion that it divides men from their fellows,
and engenders strife rather than harmony. The moment the orthodox Jew
remembers his Judaism, he ceases to be one with the nation in which he
lives, and he falls back upon those racial prejudices which certainly
perpetuate, even if they did not actually create, the aversion with
which he is regarded. It is, I repeat, not the citizen Jew, but the
theocratic Jew and the financial Jew, that constitutes the problem.
No people can expect to be loved when they, through their habits and
institutions, openly deride the institutions and customs of the nations
under whose laws they live. The orthodox Jew is not an Englishman or
a German, even though he may happen to have been born in the countries
named. In so far as he obeys the Jewish law he represents a firm,
isolated, yet international political unity, having as its goal the
dominancy of the Jewish people. The land in which he lives does not
appear to count. The Jewish people become a State within a State, living
their own life, and cutting themselves off from the customs and ideals
of the populations among whom they exist, and through whom they attain
to material comfort. The Jew will not eat or drink with his Gentile
neighbors; their marriage laws are not good enough for him; he regards
marriage with any one outside his race with horror; he will not accept
the day of rest enjoined by the peoples among whom he dwells for his own
Sabbath, but makes one day's rest in seven practically impossible for
large sections of the people by insisting upon a special day of his
own. It is this senseless isolation of Judaism, and its badly concealed
contempt for the Gentile, that make the change of attitude toward the
Jew so difficult._
The prejudice against the Jew is one of the most degrading things in
modern life. Such is the solidarity of humanity that what hurts one
is bound to hurt also the other. But we see no solution of the Jewish
problem except in the complete emancipation of the Jew from Judaism, and
of the Christian from Christianity. Reason will unite what religion has
put asunder.
V. The Masterpiece of the Bible--Solomon's Temple
|THE masterpiece of the bible was Jerusalem. The proudest building
in the "holy city" was Solomon's temple. Both Jehovah and his people
exerted themselves to do their utmost to build a temple that was to be
the envy of all ages and peoples. Preparations for its erection were
begun in the reign of David, to whom God gave untold wealth. It is
related in the bible that--
_David the king... prepared for the holy house, even three thousand
talents * of gold, of the gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of
refined silver, to overlay the walls of the houses withal... Then the
chief of the fathers and princes of the tribe of Israel... offered
willingly, and gave for the service of the house of God of gold five
thousand talents and ten thousand drams, and of silver ten thousand
talents, and of brass eighteen thousand talents, and one hundred
thousand talents of iron._ **
* Cruden makes a talent of gold about
35,000, and a talent of silver about
2,000.
** Chronicles xxix, 1-7.
Here then was a sum which in our money would run up to about three
hundred millions of dollars. We are not going to ask how the chief of
a petty tribe, in one of the poorest and most barren parts of Asia,
could, at so remote a time, raise so enormous a fund; our desire is
only to show the elaborate preparations undertaken for the erection of
Solomon's temple. But this is not the only reference to the big sums of
money and other precious things which David collected for the temple,
which was to be the glory of Jerusalem. Elsewhere in the bible we read:
_Now, behold, in my trouble I have prepared for the house of the Lord
an hundred thousand talents of gold, and a thousand thousand talents of
silver; and of brass and iron without weight._ *
This was fabulous wealth. David must have had a gold mine of miraculous
proportions. Mongredien, as quoted by G. W. Foote, of England, estimates
that the total value of all the gold and silver of every sort in the
British Isles barely amounts to seven hundred millions of dollars, and
David, the bible says, raised, "in my trouble," when times were not very
prosperous, three thousand and six hundred millions in gold, and nearly
two thousand and two hundred millions in silver. For no other building
were such preparations ever made.
But money alone was not all that was needed. A wise king, indeed the
wisest that ever sat on a throne, if the bible is to be believed,
appeared just at this time to take charge of the building of the temple.
The Lord asked Solomon to draw upon him for whatever he wanted. "Ask
what I shall give thee," ** he said. Solomon asked for wisdom, and got
very much more.
_And God said to him... I have done according to thy words: lo, I have
given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none
like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any rise like unto thee.
And I have also given thee... both riches and honour_. ***
* I Chronicles xxii, 14.
** I Kings iii, 5.
*** I Kings iii, 11-14.
Thus equipped Solomon took up the work of preparation for the building
of a suitable monument to Jehovah, which his father, David, had begun.
One of the first things Solomon did was to put thirty thousand men to
the task of gathering material for the construction of the temple.
For the space of four years this crowd of men traveled into foreign
countries in search of timber, as well as of skilled men for the temple:
_So Hiram gave Solomon cedar trees and fir trees according to all his
desire. And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures of wheat for
food to his household, and twenty measures of pure oil: thus gave
Solomon to Hiram year by year.... And King Solomon raised a levy out of
all Israel; and the levy was thirty thousand men. And he sent them to
Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses. *
And Solomon told out threescore and ten thousand men to bear burdens,
and fourscore thousand to hew in the mountain, and three thousand and
six hundred to oversee them. **
So was he seven years in building it._ ***
Four years collecting materials, and seven years building the
temple--eleven years altogether. And "threescore and ten thousand
men," added to "fourscore thousand to hew in the mountain," plus "three
thousand and six hundred" overseers, make a hundred and fifty-three
thousand men in the service of the temple. By adding to this number the
thirty thousand traveling abroad for the same object, we get the grand
total of one hundred and eighty-three thousand and six hundred laborers
devoting eleven years to the erection of the temple.
When at last the monument which had taxed the whole nation and its God
to the utmost was completed, people came from far and near to behold it
and its royal architect:
_And when the Queen of Sheba **** heard of the fame of Solomon, she came
to prove Solomon with hard questions.
* I Kings v, 10-14.
** 1 Kings vi, 38.
*** II Chronicles ii, 2.
**** Country unknown.
... and Solomon told her all her questions: and there was nothing hid
from Solomon which he told her not.
And when the Queen of Sheba had seen the wisdom of Solomon, and the
house that he had built.
And the meat of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the
attendance of his ministers, and their apparel; his cupbearers also, and
their apparel; and his ascent by which he went up into the house of
the Lord; there was no more spirit in her.... And she gave the king an
hundred and twenty talents of gold, and of spices great abundance, and
precious stones._ *
There was no more spirit in her, I suppose, means she was dumb with
astonishment. Indeed, the fame of the temple of Solomon threw a sort of
magic spell upon all the rival nations of the world, hypnotizing them
into submission to Israel:
_And all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear
his wisdom, that God had put in his heart And they brought every man his
present, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and raiment, harness,
and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year._ **
* II Chronicles ix, 1-9.
** II Chronicles ix, 23,24.
Everything turns into silver and gold. Every one of Jehovah's favorites,
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, became exceeding rich. In the
present instance, not only are "all the kings of the earth" on their
knees before the man who conceived and carried into completion so
stupendous a monument--one of the seven or eight wonders of the
world--but they also empty their purses in his lap. The temple is
already earning a dividend.
But when we draw nigh unto this bible masterpiece to take its
measurements, we find that the one hundred and eighty-three thousand and
six hundred men, working for eleven years, and spending the wealth of
many modern countries put together, produced only what we would call
to-day an unusually small meeting-house.
_And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, the length thereof
was three-score cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the
height thereof thirty cubits.
And the porch before the temple of the house, twenty cubits was the
length thereof, according to the breadth of the house; and ten cubits
was the breadth thereof before the house._ *
* I Kings vi, 2.
Now a cubit is the length of the forearm from the elbow to the end of
the middle finger, or about eighteen inches. The Egyptian cubit was
about twenty inches. It is not quite certain whether the Hebrew cubit
was as long. Some commentators, wishing to help Solomon's temple,
stretch the cubit to nearly twenty-six inches. Figuring, however, on the
basis of the cubit of bible times, the Egyptian cubit, to ascertain the
size of Solomon's temple, we find that this national monument of Israel,
the pride of the desert, was about ninety feet long, thirty feet wide,
and forty-five feet high; which would have cost to-day, when labor and
material are very much higher, but a few thousand dollars, and a short
time to build it in. Surely not all the gold and silver which David and
his son Solomon raised by taxing the people, and by collecting tribute
from foreign powers were spent in the erection of this modest little
chapel! Into what other channels could the money have been diverted?
Who did the stealing? Nobody, really. It was only mythical wealth, and
a mythical army of workmen, building a mythical temple. The real temple
which was destroyed when Jerusalem was sacked must have been a very
inexpensive affair.
The only striking feature of the vaunted Solomonic edifice was its
porch, which was altogether out of proportion to the rest of the
building, being one hundred and forty feet higher than the temple
itself. But the eccentric porch, climbing up a hundred and forty feet
higher than the building it was designed to serve, as well as the
building itself, and the untold moneys it cost, together with the huge
army of toilers, existed only in the imagination of the Jewish scribe.
We have only to think of the pyramids of Egypt, the cities and temples
of Babylonia, the still-abiding wonder of Baal-bec--the temple of the
sun, to realize that even when they vaunt their gifts and possessions,
even with their passion for inflation and swagger, the bible writers do
not rise to the level of the achievements of their heathen neighbors.
But it is only by comparing Athens with Jerusalem that we realize how
very much more wonderful is the truth of paganism than Jewish fiction.
It is not our intention to enumerate the masterpieces of Athens. To
preserve even its dust and broken fragments, museums far more stupendous
than Solomon's temple have been reared all over the world. Was not
Athens--as a city, as a place of habitation, as a school for the
mind, as a spectacle for the eye, as the home of liberty--better than
Jerusalem? And is not the book or books which tell the story of the
wonderful Greeks--how they lived, and thought, and sang, and wrought
their masterpieces--better than the book which tells the story of the
desert? Both Judaism and Christianity will disappear, but Greece, that
is to say, science, that is to say, art, that is to say, civilization,
will continue to produce masterpieces, and yet remain as prolific as
time.