Thus far we have simply dealt with the presumption. The considerations
advanced show us what we might expect to find. When we proceed from
presumption to actual investigation, our conjectures are verified. There
are certainly passages in the Bible which in any other writings we should
call Wit and Humor. Since this is the case, our discussion is legitimate,
however repugnant the very suggestion may be to the feelings with which we
are accustomed to regard the Bible.
Let us take some examples. If we found in any other book such a saying as
this, "Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a
stinking savor, so doth a little folly him that is in great reputation for
wisdom and honor," should we not call it witty? Is it not witty as the
Russian proverb "A spoonful of tar in a barrel of honey?"
Or consider such sentences as the following: "All the labor of a man is
for his mouth, and yet his appetite is not filled." "As he that taketh
away a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre, so is he that
singeth songs to a heavy heart." "Bread of deceit is sweet to a man, but
afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel." "He that answereth a
matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." "A man of
great wrath shall suffer punishment; for if thou deliver him, yet must
thou do it again." In other words, a man of violent temper is always
getting into difficulties; you have no sooner helped him out of one than
he madly plunges into another. Like the irascible person in the old
nursery rhyme, who jumped into a bramble bush and scratched out both his
eyes, he is no sooner extricated, than "with all his might and main, he
jumps into another bush and puts them out again." "Can a man take fire in
his bosom and his clothes not be burned? Can he go upon hot coals and his
feet not be burned?" "Wealth makes many friends, but the poor is
separated from his neighbor." "He that passeth by and meddleth with strife
belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears." If we
came upon such sentences in Johnson or Goldsmith, we should say in a
moment that they were instances of genuine wit. Let us not hesitate to
carry the same frankness of literary judgment to the Bible. When Isaiah
characterizes certain ones as "mighty to drink wine and men of strength to
mingle strong drink," does he not use essentially the same reproach that
Prince Hal fastened upon Falstaff, "Wherein is he good but to taste sack
and drink it?" Who shall say that the earlier satire did not suggest the
later? Much has been written about Shakespeare's indebtedness to the
Bible.
Here is a passage of biting sarcasm from Job. We should surely call it
sarcasm if we found it in the pages of Robert South. Job is expressing his
scorn for those who affect to look down upon him in his adversities: "But
now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I
would have disdained to set with the dogs of my flock." They are "the
children of fools, yea, children of base men; they were viler than the
earth." (We have an equivalent expression in "meaner than dirt.") They are
members of the long-eared fraternity. He does not say so in the bluntest
form of expression that can be used, and that any one less skillful would
have used. Job puts it much more effectively: "Among the bushes they
_brayed_; under the _nettles_ they were gathered together." "If that is
not wit," says one, "there is no such thing as wit. And yet the
commentators do not see it, or will not see it. They are perfectly wooden
when they come to any such gleam of humor."
There is a bit of ridicule in Jeremiah that we should be quick to call
ridicule, if we came upon it elsewhere. He is describing the disasters
that fell upon the allies of the King of Egypt. "Why are the strong ones
swept away? They stood not because the Lord did thrust them down. He made
them to stumble, yea they fell one upon another; and they said, Arise, and
let us go again to our own people, and to the land of our nativity, from
the oppressing sword." They are defeated in spite of all the promises of
the King of Egypt. He does not seem to avail them. His boasts are
ineffectual. His disgusted allies depart, flinging at him the withering
reproach, "_Pharoah, King of Egypt, is but a noise_; he hath let the
appointed time pass by." That is to say, according to one paraphrase,
"Pharoah is of no account now, he has had his chance and lost it; he has
outlived his influence; his day is over; he is not a sovereign any longer;
he is only a noise." Or as Matthew Henry puts it, "Pharoah can hector and
talk big; but that is all; all his promises vanish into smoke." In the
same spirit, Queen Catherine says of the dead Wolsey,
"His promise was as he then was, mighty;
But his performance, as he now is, nothing."
If we found a little sketch like the following in Thackeray, we should,
beyond doubt, pronounce it humorous: "All the brethren of the poor do hate
him; how much more do his friends go far from him. He pursueth them with
words, yet are they wanting to him." The words of a poor man can not
travel fast enough to overtake his rich friends and neighbors. Indeed,
Thackeray has drawn such a picture in his more elaborate description of
Harry Warrington in the sponging-house, making vain appeals for help to
his rich relatives and friends. "He pursued them with words, yet were they
wanting to him." His aunt,--"a member of the great and always established
Church of the Pharisees, sent him her blessing,--and a tract!"
If we found, in any modern literature, a sketch of the ruling deacon in a
church, like John's description of Diotrephus, we should say it was tinged
with satire. "I wrote unto the Church, but Diotrephus, _who loveth to have
the pre-eminence among them_, receiveth us not. Wherefore if I come, I
will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious
words; and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the
brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, _and casteth them out of the
Church_." Evidently there was a deacon in one of the apostolic churches,
who always had to be consulted. Everything must go as he dictated. He did
not even stand in awe of an accredited apostle. The minister must preach
according to his views of theology, or signify his willingness to accept a
call to a new field. Those members of the church who upheld a minister
whom Diotrephus did not like, found their connection with the body severed
without the formality of asking their consent. In the matter of having a
Diotrephus within their borders, some churches to-day find themselves in
the direct line of apostolic succession.
In the book of Acts, there is an account of Paul's reception at Athens.
"And they took him and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know
what this new doctrine is, whereof thou speakest? For thou bringest
certain strange things to our ears; we would know, therefore, what these
things mean." In the comment which follows this account, the writer
indulges in a touch of ridicule upon the Athenian gossips and curiosity
mongers. We should say it was a touch of ridicule if we found it in
Addison. "For all the Athenians and strangers which were there, _spent
their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new
thing_." Indeed there is a sketch in Addison of which this might easily
have been the ground-work. "There is no humor of my countrymen which I am
more inclined to wonder at than _their general thirst after news_. A
victory or defeat is equally agreeable to them. The shutting of a
cardinal's mouth pleaseth them one post, and the opening of it another.
They are delighted to hear the French Court is removed to Marli, and are
afterwards as much delighted with its return to Versailles. They read the
advertisements with the same curiosity as the articles of public news; and
are as pleased to hear of a pye-bald horse that is strayed out of a field
near Islington, as of a whole troop that has been engaged in any foreign
adventure. In short, _they have a relish for anything that is news_, let
the matter of it be what it will. _They are men of a voracious appetite._"
Is not the comment of the Scriptural writer upon the Athenians in the
same vein with Addison's comment upon the English?
Isaiah rebukes those "who call evil good and good evil; who put darkness
for light and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for
bitter,"--thus confusing moral distinctions. This is the same sort of
sophistry that Addison exposes, in his gentle way, by proposing the
following form of agreement: "We whose names are hereunto subscribed, do
solemnly declare that we do in our consciences believe that two and two
make four; and that we shall adjudge any man whatever to be our enemy who
endeavors to persuade us to the contrary. We are likewise ready to
maintain, with the hazard of all that is near and dear to us, that six is
less than seven in all times and at all places; and that ten will not be
more three years hence than it is at present. We do also firmly declare
that it is our resolution as long as we live to call Black black and White
white. _And we shall upon all occasions oppose such persons that upon any
day of the year shall call Black white or White black, with the utmost of
our lives and fortunes._" The rebuke, in both cases, is the same.