imperfection and error. This is true of every Bible in existence.
We will begin with the Bible in common use, and what do we find! The
title-page tells us it is a _translation_ from the original tongues, by
the special command of one of the kings of England. Does any one pretend
that the translators were infallible--men above the possibility of
error? Nothing of the kind. Even those who contend that the original
_writers_ of the Bible were infallible, do not pretend that the king's
translators were so. The sects and priesthoods themselves show that they
regard the common translation as imperfect. They all take the liberty
to alter it. They alter it in thousands and tens of thousands of places.
Nothing is more common than for theological disputants to appeal from
the common translation of the Bible to what they call the original Greek
and Hebrew. Every commentator takes the same liberty. The leaders of the
sects and priesthoods of the day have testified their belief that
the Bibles in common use are imperfect and erroneous by making _new_
translations. There is scarcely an English sect or priesthood of
any note in existence that has not produced a new translation of the
Scriptures. John Wesley translated both the Old and New Testament. His
translation of the New Testament continues to be used in the Methodist
body to this day. Adam Clarke, in his 'Commentary,' translates afresh
almost every important passage in the book. Many passages he translates
in such a way as to give them meanings quite contrary to the meaning
given them in the common Bible. Richard Watson, a Methodist
preacher, commenced a new translation of the Bible. Dr. Boothroyd, a
Congregationalist minister of England, published another translation.
Dr. Conquest, a layman of the same denomination, published another, in
which he says he made twenty thousand emendations, or improvements.
He must, therefore, have thought the common Bible had twenty thousand
imperfections or errors. Mr. Belsham, and other English Unitarians,
published a new translation of the New Testament. Mr. Wellbeloved, a
Unitarian minister, published a new translation of a great part of
the Old testament, intending to publish a new translation of the whole
Bible. Even ministers of the Established Church have spoken strongly
against the common translation, and some of them have gone so far as
to _publish_ new translations _of portions_ of the Bible. Alexander
Campbell, the founder of the denomination which bears his name, has
published a new translation of the New Testament. A Mr. Taylor published
a new translation of the New Testament from Griesbach's Greek New
Testament. A Mr. Sharp published another translation from Griesbach's
Greek text. The Baptists have published a new translation of the Bible,
I am told.... We are not alone, therefore, in believing that the Bibles
in common use bear marks of human imperfection and error. The leading
men in all the religious sects and priesthoods of Great Britain and
America believe the same. We add, if the translators of the Bible had
been the best and wisest men that ever lived, their work would not have
been perfect. A translation from Greek and Hebrew cannot be perfect. But
the translators employed by King James were not the best or wisest men
that ever lived. They were, in some respects, exceedingly ignorant,
prejudiced, and immoral.... They were liars and false-swearers.
These dignitaries of the Church of England knew, as well as you know,
that kings and queens are often vicious, profligate, and godless. They
knew that among the kings and queens of England there had been some of
the most loathsome lumps of filthiness--some of the most adulterous
and lecherous sensualists--some of the most heartless and cruel
tyrants--some of the most inhuman and bloody wretches that ever cursed
the earth. They knew, too, that English kings and queens generally were
under strong temptations to be thus cruel and profligate, and that
it was too much to expect any of them to be strictly religious and
virtuous. Yet they bound themselves on oath to call their kings
and queens, whatever their characters might be, most gracious and
religious.' They _did_ call the monarch then living, 'most gracious and
religious,' and they handed it down as a duty to their successors to
give the same high titles to all their future monarchs, though they
should be as filthy as that unwieldy, waddling mass of lust and
rottenness, King Henry the Eighth, or at false and treacherous as the
perjured Charles the First. These translators of the Bible also knew
that many who were brought to them to be buried were godless,
wicked men. They knew that some of them were drunkards, adulterers,
false-swearers. Yet they bound themselves to call them all, as they
lowered them into their graves, their 'beloved brethren,' and to declare
that they committed them to the dust 'in sure and curtain hope of a
resurrection to eternal life,' though they believed in their hearts that
they would rise to eternal damnation.... They were the hirelings of the
king and government. They regarded the king as the head of the church,
and were sworn to obey him in all things. They were sworn to obey him in
translating the Bible. The king gave them the rules by which they were
to be guided in the work of translation, and they were sworn to follow
these rules. These rules were intended to prevent them from putting
anything into their translation of the Bible that was at variance with
the established priesthoods, and to keep them from leaving out anything
that was favorable to the Established Church and government. And they
_kept_ to their rules, and they were influenced by their interests,
their situation, and their prejudices. It would be foolish to think
otherwise. To make the Bible agree with their creed, they put into their
translation things which were not in the Greek or Hebrew Bibles, and
mistranslated vast multitudes of things which were in the Greek and
Hebrew Bibles. I will give you an instance or two. Their creed taught
that God once died, or laid down his life. There was nothing in the
Greek or Hebrew Bibles to uphold this doctrine, so in translating the
Bible they so altered a passage as to make it to teach the doctrine.
You may find the passage in 1 John, iii. 16. It is as follows:--'Hereby
perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us.' Now
the word 'God' is not in the Greek; it was put into the passage by the
translators. In one place in the Old Testament it is said that Elhanan
slew Goliath the Gittite. The translators have altered the passage so as
to make it say that it was the _brother_ of Goliath that Elhanan slew.
See 2 Samuel xxi. 19.... Before a man can give a perfect translation of
the Bible, he must have a perfect knowledge of both the Greek and Hebrew
Bible, and of the language into which he would translate it. But no man
has that knowledge. The Greek and Hebrew languages, from which the Bible
has to be translated, are dead languages--languages which are no longer
spoken or written by any people--languages which exist only in ancient
writings. The meaning of many of the words of those languages is, in
consequence, lost. The writings of the Old Testament are the only books
remaining in the Hebrew language. There are no Hebrew books to throw
light on dark passages, or to settle the meaning of doubtful words and
phrases. True, we have Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and grammars, but
these dictionaries and grammars are the work of imperfect and erring
men, who had no other means oi understanding the meaning of the Greek
and Hebrew languages than ourselves. These dictionaries and grammars
differ from each other. None of them are perfect. The best abound with
errors. We have better means of obtaining a knowledge of the Greek
language than of the Hebrew--but the Greek of the New Testament is a
peculiar dialect, not to be found in any other book. It is, therefore,
as difficult to translate the New Testament as the Old. If, herefore, we
would find a Bible that does _not_ bear the marks of human imperfection
and error, we must look for it in what are called the original Greek and
Hebrew. But there is no such Bible. The Greek and Hebrew Bibles are
as really imperfect as the English translations. The Greek and Hebrew
Bibles are as really the work of imperfect and erring men as the English
translations are. Many people imagine that there is only _one_ Greek and
Hebrew Bible, and that that one was written by Moses and the prophets,
and by the evangelists and the apostles. But this is not the case.
There are _several_ Greek and Hebrew Bibles, and all of them are the
compilations of fallible men. We have several Hebrew Old Testaments,
and quite a number of Greek New Testaments, all compiled by different
persons, but drawn, to some extent, from different sources. It should
be understood, that the oldest Greek and Hebrew Bibles are not printed
books, but written ones. They were written before the art of printing
was known among Jews or Christians. Those written or manuscript Bibles
are more numerous than the Greek and Hebrew printed Bibles. They are the
work of different men, in different countries, and different ages. And
no two of them are alike. They differ from each other almost endlessly.
Some contain more, some less. Some have passages in one form, others
have them in other forms. John Mills compared a number of those
manuscripts of the New Testament, and found that they differed from each
other in thirty thousand places. He marked and collated thirty thousand
various readings. Other men have compared the Greek manuscripts of the
New Testament, and discovered upwards of a hundred thousand various
readings--a hundred thousand places or particulars in which they differ
from each other. A similar diversity of readings is to be found in the
Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testaments. Now it is from these imperfect
and discordant manuscripts that men have to make their Greek and Hebrew
Bibles. They have nothing else from which to make them. And those Greek
and Hebrew Bible makers have no means of knowing which of the various
and contradictory manuscripts are the best.... You must understand
that the original writings from which the manuscripts now in existence
originated, have perished many ages ago. It is probable that the last of
them perished more than sixteen hundred years ago. We have, therefore,
no opportunity of comparing existing manuscripts with the original
writings, in order to and out which are the true, the original readings.
The discordant and contradictory manuscripts, therefore, can never be
corrected.... It is not only of the common English Bible, therefore,
that the words of the resolution are true, but of every Bible known,
whether printed or written, whether in Greek and Hebrew, or in modern
languages."
Since Mr. Baker has resided in America, he has visited England, and
lectured for the Secular and Freethought Societies in England and
Scotland; the total number of lectures he delivered during his visit
amounted to 153, besides engaging in several debates, the principal one
being with the Rey. Brewin Grant, at Halifax, during ten nights, on the
"Divine Authority of the Bible," which is now published. The views
now held by Mr. Barker on "God" and Secularism may be seen from the
following extract of a letter addressed to the Editor of the Reasoner,
written by Mr. Barker from America, on February 22, 1853:--
"I confess I know nothing of God, but as he is revealed in his works.
With me, the word God stands for the unseen cause of all natural
phenomena. I attribute to God no quality but what seems necessary to
account for what I see in nature. My Jewish and Christian notions of
God are all gone, except so far as they appear to be the utterances of
nature.... As to Secularism, I think our business is with the seen, the
worldly, the physical, the secular. Our whole duty seems to me to be
truly and fully to unfold ourselves, and truly and fully to unfold
others: to secure the greatest possible perfection of being and
condition, and the largest possible share of life and enjoyment to all
mankind in this present world. The machinery of sects and priesthoods
for saving souls and fitting men for heaven, I regard as wasteful and
injurious folly, except so far as it may tend to better men and improve
their condition here. I have a hope of future life, but whatever is best
for this life must be best for another life; whatever is best for the
present, must be best for the eternal future. To reveal to men the laws
of their own being, and to unfold to them the laws of nature generally,
and to bring them into harmony with those laws, is, therefore, with
me, the whole business of man. If there be another world, as 1 hope, it
will, I suppose, be governed by the same laws as this. If men live on
for ever, they will have all the better start in a future life, for
having got well on in this. As an _art_, therefore, I believe in
Secularism."
J. W.
_Note by the American Publisher_.--Soon after Mr. Barker's return from
England, he resumed his lecturing in various towns and cities in the
United States, giving great satisfaction, by his able addresses, to
large and intelligent audiences. He still labors occasionally in the
same pursuit, though at present he is residing on his farm at Omaha
City, in the Territory of Nebraska. Much might be said in praise of his
efforts to promote Liberalism in this country; but his greatest triumph,
as we consider it, was his public debate with the Rev. Dr. Berg of
Philadelphia. This took place on the 9th of January, 1854, and continued
no less than _eight evenings_. The question was on "the origin,
authority, and tendency of the Bible"--Dr. Berg affirming, and Mr.
Barker opposing. This famous discussion was attended by thousands, and
was probably the greatest affair of the kind that ever occurred. The
speeches on both sides were published, making a large pamphlet of 190
pages. Of course, each of the debaters was victorious, in the opinion of
his friends; but the trick played by the Christian party, in the closing
scene, showed a determination on their part to claim the victory whether
or no! For, as soon as Dr. Berg (who made the last speech) had finished,
one of his friends took the platform, and, while the audience were
separating, read some resolutions in favor of the Doctor and the Bible.
"Less than one fourth of the audience," says the Philadelphia Register,
"voted for them. The more serious part of the audience did not vote at
all. The great majority seemed to take the thing as a farce. The result
of the vote made a good many long faces on the stage and front seats. A
short silence ensued, followed by a burst of obstreporous laughter,
and cries of '_the Infidels have it!_' And so ended the most remarkable
debate ever held in America."
The following correct and candid report of the above discussion,
appeared at the time in the columns of the Pennsylvania Freeman:--
The Bible Discussion.--The discussion on the authority of the Bible, at
Concert Hall, between Rev. J. F. Berg, of this city and Joseph Barker,
of Ohio, closed on Thursday evening last, after a continuance of eight
evenings. During the whole time, the vast hall was crowded with an
eager multitude--numbering from 2000 to 2500 persons--each paying an
admittance of 12 1-2 cents every evening, and on some evenings it is
said that hundreds went away, unable to approach the door; nor did the
interest appear to flag among the hearers to the last.
Of the merits of the question or the argument, it does not come within
the scope of a strictly anti-slavery paper to speak, but we cannot
forbear to notice the contrast in the manner and bearing of the two
debaters, and the two parties among the audience. Mr. Barker uniformly
bore himself as a gentleman, courteously and respectfully towards his
opponent, and with the dignity becoming his position, and the solemnity
and importance of the question. We regret that we cannot say the same of
Dr. Berg, who at times seemed to forget the obligations of the gentleman
in his zeal as a controversialist. He is an able and skillful debater,
though less logical than Mr. Barker, but he wasted his time and
strength too often on personalities and irrelevant matters. His personal
inuendoes and epithets, his coarse witticisms, and a bearing that seemed
to us more arrogant than Christian, may have suited the vulgar and
the intolerant among his party, but we believe these things won him no
respect from the calm and thinking portion of the audience, while we
know that they grieved and offended some intelligent and candid men who
thoroughly agreed with his views. It is surely time that all Christians
and clergymen had learned that men whom they regard as heretics and
Infidels have not forfeited their claims to the respect and courtesies
of social life, by their errors of opinion, and that insolence and
arrogance, contemptuous sneers and impeachment of motives and
character, toward such men, are not effective means of grace for their
enlightenment and conversion.
Among the audience, there was a large number of men, who also lost their
self-control in their dislike to Mr. Barker's views, and he was often
interrupted, and sometimes checked in his argument, by hisses, groans,
sneers, vulgar cries, and clamor, though through all these annoyances
and repeated provocations, he maintained his wonted composure of manner
and clearness of thought. On the other hand, Dr. Berg was heard with
general quiet by his opponents, and greeted with clamorous applause by
his friends, who seemed to constitute a large majority of the audience,
and to feel that the triumph of their cause, like the capture of Jericho
of old, depended upon the amount of noise made.
Mr. Barker, in giving an account of the origin of the discussion,
says:--
"In December, [1853] in compliance with a request from the Sunday
Institute, I began a course of lectures in Philadelphia, on the origin,
authority and influence of the Scriptures. The object of the lectures
was to show that the Bible is of _human_ origin, that its teachings are
not of divine authority, and that the doctrine that the Bible is God's
word is injurious in its tendency.
"When I sent the Sunday Institute a programme of my lectures, I
authorised the Secretary to announce, through the papers, that I was
willing to meet any clergyman, of good standing in any of the leading
churches, in public discussion on the Bible question."
[The Rev. Mr. McCalla, a Presbyterian clergyman, accepted the offer,
and arrangements were made for a six nights debate; but, on the fifth
evening, after trying to raise a mob, he withdrew from the contest.]
"The clergy, or a portion of the clergy, of Philadelphia, unwilling to
leave their cause in this plight, demanded that I should discuss the
question with Dr. Berg, a minister in whom they had fuller confidence.
Being assured that Dr. Berg was a gentleman and a scholar, and that he
was the ablest debater the clergy of Philadelphia could boast, I agreed
to meet him, and the discussion was fixed for the 9th, 10th, 12th, 13th,
16th, 17th, 18th and 19th of January."....
"Though the Doctor did not prove himself so much of a gentleman as I
had been encouraged to expect, I was sorry he declined to continue the
discussion four nights longer, as we had not got more than half through
the question when the eighth night closed. I wished for an opportunity
of laying the whole subject before the public. Perhaps some other
clergyman will take the matter in hand--one disposed and able to discuss
the subject thoroughly."