THE BIBLE: WHAT IT IS! BY 'ICONOCLAST'
By Charles Bradlaugh
Published By The Author
Sold By Holyoake And Co., 147, Fleet Street; Parker, Ridge Heath; Sharp,
Tabernacle Walk, London; J. Bates, Champton; J. B. Cooper, Manchester;
G. Miller, Glasgow; Watson, Newcastle-On-Tyne; And Robinson, Edinburgh.
BEING AN EXAMINATION THEREOF FROM GENESIS TO REVELATIONS {1}
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:
The author states the scope of his work as "BEING AN EXAMINATION THEREOF
FROM GENESIS TO REVELATIONS". My copy of the first two pamphlets give
only the first nine books of the 39 book St. James version--nor can I
find in any old book stores or on internet search any print or
electronic copy which goes beyond the first nine books of the Old
Testament. Either my nine books are but a fragment of the whole of
Bradlaugh's work, or he may not have completed it. Regardless, the
detail of his work here, with Hebrew and Greek references, make this a
valuable study.
DW
BOOK I. GENESIS
The Bible is the name by which the collection of Books beginning with
Genesis and ending with Revelations is commonly known. It is derived
from the Greek word [------] (Books), and this name is supposed to have
been first applied in the fifth century by Chrysostom, before which
time those books were known as [------] holy writings, sacred writings,
writings of God.
The Bible is divided into three parts: the Old Testament, containing
thirty-nine books, the New Testament, containing twenty-seven books,
and the Apocrypha, containing fourteen books; making in the whole eighty
books. It is only the first portion, known as the Old Testament, upon
which I intend to treat at present. It professes to be translated from
the Hebrew, in which Language (according to the learned Parkhurst) God
communicated with Adam; or, perhaps to quote the learned divine more
correctly, I ought to say that 'Hebrew was the language in which God
taught Adam to speak.' It has been suggested by other saintly writers
that Hebrew will be the language spoken in Paradise by the Saints. It is
perhaps to be regretted that God did not choose a language more copious,
and less capable of being misconstrued; but I will not at present stop
to question whether the fact be as above stated--it is sufficient for
us to know that the original of the Old Testament is (with some slight
exception) written in the Hebrew.
The Old Testament is divided by the Jews into three parts, called 1st,
(the law)--this division includes Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy; 2nd, (the Prophecies)--this portion contains the Books
of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, which are known as the former
prophets, and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, and
Malachi--of these, the three first are called 'the greater Prophets,'
and the remaining twelve 'the lesser'; 3rd, (holy writings), comprising
the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemian, and first and second
Chronicles. I have given the books in their Jewish order, which differs
from our own, Chronicles being the last book of the Hebrew Bible.
The earliest complete translation into English of the whole of the Bible
was made in the fourteenth century by the famous John Wickliffe, who was
born in 1324 and died in 1384. This translation was reprinted in 1731,
and again in 1810. Wickliffe's version {2} of the Old Testament, I
believe, still remains in manuscript. Portions of the Bible had been
previously translated into Saxon, and it is alleged that one John de
Trevisa had completed a translation prior to Wickliffe.
The next translation appears to have been made by William Tyndale (a
native of Gloucestershire, born about 1477, and cruelly murdered
in September, 1536) who, in 1526, printed two editions of the New
Testament, which were issued from Wittemberg; both of these were,
however, bought up by the Church authorities, and committed to the
flames. Tyndale, however, nothing daunted by this, continued his work of
translation, in which he is said to have been assisted by Martin Luther;
Tyndale at this time residing at Antwerp, to which place he had been
compelled to fly in 1523, to avoid the persecution of the priests.
It is worthy of notice that the Bible, which is alleged by the priests
to be God's word revealed to the people, was never revealed to the
people of England in their own tongue until the fourteenth century; that
it was not until fifty-two years after printing had been introduced into
England that any attempt was made to print an English edition: and that
the first man who was sufficiently religiously disposed to print an
edition, had his work burnt by the very men who, if their doctrines are
true, should have zealously guarded each copy. Not only were the
Bibles burnt, but every person in whose possession they were found was
subjected to severe punishment. Despite all this, the editions issued
by Tyndale were eagerly bought; and efforts were then made by King Henry
VIII., Cardinal Wolsey, and Sir Thomas More, to lure poor Tyndale back
to England, but he was too cautious to return. His friend, John Frith,
who had assisted him in translating, was more credulous; and, returning
to London upon the king's promise of safety, was arrested and burnt.
Tyndale was ultimately entrapped, and strangled and burnt at Vilvoord,
near Antwerp.
One would now be inclined to think that the priests well knew that to
place the Bible in the hands of the people would be to tear down the
veil from the temple, would expose their trickeries, and would place in
the hands of the mass the means of detecting their false pretence. Under
the guise of preachers of a revelation from God, they had ruled the
minds of the people; and they were fully aware or the danger which would
accrue to themselves should the people ever examine too closely into
the merits of that revelation. Sir Thomas More wrote against Tyndale in
language which will startle the readers of the present day, especially
when we remember that Tyndale's crime was the presenting us with a
translation of the Bible admirable for its style and general accuracy.
More says, 'Our Saviour will say to Tyndale, Thou art accursed, Tyndale,
the son of the Devil, for neither flesh nor blood hath taught thee
these heresies, but thine own Father, the devil, that is in Hell. Ah,
blasphemous beast, to whose roaring and lowing no good Christian man
can, without heaviness of heart, give ear.' {3} The next published
translation was by Miles Coverdale (born 1535), who partially used
Tyndale's text. Coverdale appears only to have translated from the
Dutch and Latin into English. It does not seem at all clear that Tyndale
translated from the Greek and Hebrew direct. It is quite certain that
prior to this time the monks placed great difficulties in the way of
acquiring either of those languages, in fact, Erasmus tells us that
to know Greek was to be suspected, and to know Hebrew would prove you
heretic outright.
The next is known as Matthewe's Bible, which is supposed to have been
issued in the early part of the sixteenth century, by Richard Grafton.
It is merely a collation of the texts of Tyndale and Coverdale.
About the same time were issued Cranmer's and Taverner's editions of the
Bible.
The Geneva edition, issued in 1560, is that which is commonly known as
the 'Breeches Bible,' on account of the translation of Genesis, c. 3, v.
7. I have a copy of this in reference.
Bishop Parker's Bible was issued in 1568. This edition was completed
by the aid of several learned men, and differs considerably from its
predecessors.
In 1582, the Douay edition of the New Testament was issued; and, in
1609, the Old Testament also. The former was printed at Rheims, the
latter at Douay; and both were issued under the superintendence of
Cardinal Allen. This brings us to the period at which what is commonly
known as the authorised version was issued. This being the version I
have to examine, I shall quote the history of it as given in an able
article which appeared in the _Penny Cyclopædia_:--'Early in the
reign of King James I., there was a conference of divines of different
opinions, at Hampton Court, for the settling of the peace of the Church.
In this conference much was said concerning the imperfection of the
existing translations of the Scriptures. The king himself, who was often
present at these meetings, expressed a strong opinion on that point of
the debate. "I wish," said he, "some special pains were taken for an
uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned in both
Universities, then reviewed by the bishops, presented to the Privy
Council, and, lastly, ratified by royal authority, to be read in the
whole Church, and no other." Out of this speech of the king's arose
the present English Bible; for the suggestion soon ripened into a
resolution. As this is the Bible which has for more than two centuries
been the only Bible allowed to be read in the English Church, and as it
is also the Bible universally used in dissenting communities, we may
be expected to give a more extended notice of it than of the former
editions. Fifty-four of the persons in that age most distinguished for
that particular species of learning which such a duty required, were
selected for the work, according to the king's suggestion; finally,
forty-seven of them undertook it. They divided themselves into six
independent classes, to each of which a certain portion of the work was
assigned. Each person in the class was to produce his own translation of
the whole {4} committed to them, and these several translations were to
be revised at a general meeting of the class. When the class had agreed
upon their version, it was to be transmitted to each of the other
classes; so that no part was to come out without the sanction of the
whole body.
'Two of the classes sat at Westminster, two at Oxford, and two at
Cambridge. The instructions which they received from the king were, that
they should adhere to the Bishops' Bible, which was then ordinarily
read in the Churches, making as few deviations from it as possible.
They were, however, to use the other versions, and to consult the
translations which had been made into other modern languages; and they
were to keep in the old ecclesiastical words, such as Church, etc. When
a word had divers significations, "that should be kept which had been
most commonly used by the ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the
propriety of the place and the analogy of faith." No marginal notes were
to be used, except for the further explication of some Greek or Hebrew
word. References to parallel passages might be given. They were to call
in the assistance of any learned man who was known to have made this
subject his study.
'They were employed upon the work for three years, namely from 1607 to
1610; proceeding with that deliberation and care which so weighty an
undertaking required. The names of the divines engaged in it, and the
portions known which were committed to each class, are reserved. If we
say that there are few names among them which have acquired a lasting
celebrity, we are only saying of them what is the usual fete of divines.
The name of Bishop Andrews is first in place and the first in celebrity.
It is believed that Bancroft, then Archbishop of Canterbury, though not
one of the professed translators, had much to do in the superintendence
of the work. It came forth from the press of Robert Barker in 1611.'
I have a copy printed by Robert Barker before me which contains the
whole eighty books. It begins with these words, 'The first book of
Moses, called Genesis.' Not one word of this title is to be found in
the Hebrew. The word Genesis is a Greek word, signifying production,
generation, birth, origin, or formation. It seems curious that the
translators should have given a Hebrew book a Greek title. In the
Hebrew there is no title to the book; the first word [------] (in the
beginning) is merely written in larger characters. The headings to each
page and chapter are also additions made by the translators; and this
is sometimes very important, as they are made to improperly govern
the meaning of the text. As to Genesis being called 'the first book of
Moses,' I think that grave censure should be cast on those who prefixed
those words; they are entirely omitted in the Douay edition. Long since,
our churchmen have been acquainted with the fact that these words,
fixing the authorship on Moses, form no part of the original text, yet
they allow edition after edition to be printed bearing the same title as
that of 1611. Why is this? It is not that they are afraid of tampering
with the authorised version, for they have actually, in the later
editions, omitted the whole fourteen books of the Apocrypha, which were
included in the original edition. {5} In an edition of King James's
authorised version, printed in 1630, the page containing Ezekiel,
chapter 7, is headed by mistake with the word 'Apocrypha.' This mistake
has been corrected in the later editions; why not also have corrected
those five false statements which allege Moses as the author of the
Pentateuch? There have been, also, several printers' errors corrected in
the later editions, yet the words in question are allowed to stand;
why is this? again I ask. The persistence in an error of so important a
character would justify suspicion, and even the allegation of fraudulent
intent on the part of those who issue the book. It is an attempt to give
an anonymous work an undue claim on our attention. Moses himself, in no
part of the five books, claims to be the author of them; and in no part
of the Bible is he alleged to be the writer of the Pentateuch. It is
certainly alleged that Moses wrote 'the law,' 'the book of the law,'
but there is nothing whatever to show that that work outlived the
destruction of Jerusalem, and there are several express declarations to
the contrary (_vide_ Letter on the Pentateuch by Thomas Cooper, M.D.,
and Esdras, chap, xiv., v. 21). I am aware of the texts quoted by those
who allege that Moses was the author of the whole Pentateuch; viz.,
Exodus, chap, xvii., v. 14, chap, xxiv., v. 4 and 7, chap, xxxiv., v.
27, Numbers, chap, xxxiii., v. 1 and 2, Deuteronomy, chap, i., v. 5,
chap, xxxi., v. 9, 13, 22, 24, 26; but do not think that they will, even
in the hands of the most partial supporter of the Mosaic hypothesis,
bear on the question sufficiently to decide it in the affirmative, or
even to create a presumption in its favour. That Moses was the author
of the Pentateuch as it now stands is a proposition which no intelligent
man in the present day will venture to support, especially after the
elaborate criticisms of Aben Ezra, Spinoza, Hobbes, Peyrerius, Astruc,
Pere Simon, Volney, Voltaire, Gesenius, Vater, Paine, and others. The
whole of the five books abound with passages which could not have been
written by Moses, or during his life time. See--Genesis, chap, xii.,
v. 6, also chap, xiii., v. 7; these verses must have been written at a
period when the Canaanites had been expelled from the land of which they
were in quiet possession during the lifetime of Moses:--
Genesis, chap, xiv., v. 14. The city of Lais, Laish, or Leshem, was
not called Dan until long after the death of Moses, when the Danites
possessed themselves of it and called it after Dan, their father (vide
Joshua, chap, xix., v. 47, and Judges, chap, xviii., v. 29):--Genesis,
chap, xiii., v. 18, chap, xxiii., v. 2 and 19, chap, xxv., v. 27, &c.
These verses and several others, in which Hebron is named, cannot be
from the pen of Moses, for there was no such place as Hebron in his
day. Kirjath Arba was not called Hebron until given to Caleb, son of
Jephunneh, long after the death of Moses (vide Joshua, chap, xiv., v. 14
and 15):--
Genesis, chap, xx., v. 16, and chap, xxiii., v. 15 and 16. Of these
verses, Voltaire writes as follows; 'Learned and ingenious men, full
of their own talents and acquirements, have maintained that it is {6}
impossible Moses could have written the book of Genesis. One of their
principal reasons is, that in the history of Abraham that patriarch is
stated to have paid for a cave he purchased for the interment of his
wife, in silver coin; and the King of Gerar to have given Sarah a
thousand pieces of silver, when he restored her, after having carried
her off for her beauty at the age of seventy-five. They inform us that
they have consulted all the ancient authors, and that it appears
very certain that, at the period mentioned, silver money was not in
existence:--
Genesis, chap. xxii. v. 14. It is asserted that Mount Moriah was not
called the Mount of the Lord until after the Temple was erected thereon,
centuries after the death of Moses:--
Genesis, chap, xxxvi., v. 31. This could not have been written until
kings had ruled over the Children of Israel, which would bring the
authorship to the time of Saul, even conceding the earliest date.
Voltaire says, 'this is the celebrated passage which has proved one of
the great stumbling-stones; this it was which decided the great
Newton, the proud and acute Samuel Clarke, the profound and philosophic
Bolingbroke, the learned Le Clerc, the ingenious Freret, and a host of
other enlightened men, to maintain that it was impossible Moses could
have been the author of Genesis':--
Exodus, chap, xvi., v. 35. This could not have been written by Moses,
as manna did not cease until after his death (vide Joshua, chap, v., v.
12):--
Numbers, chap, xii., v. 3. No man will for one moment suppose that a
meek man would write his own character, to be handed down to posterity
in this fashion. Paine, quoting the verse, says, 'If Moses said this
of himself, instead of being the meekest of men, he was one of the most
vain and arrogant of coxcombs, and the advocates for these books may now
take which side they please, for both sides are against them; if Moses
was not the author, the book is without authority, and if he was the
author, is without credit, because to boast of meekness is the reverse
of meekness, and is a lie in sentiment':--
Deuteronomy, chap, i., v. 1 and 5, and chap iv., v. 41 to 49. 'These
be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on the other side of
Jordan.' Our version gives it, 'this side Jordan,' but the Hebrew word
in each verse is [------] which even the orthodox Park-hurst translates
as meaning over, beyond, on the other side (_vide_ Parkhurst's Lexicon,
p. 509, article [------] and Dr. Cooper's Letter, p. 41 to 44). In fact,
the translators of the Bible have themselves translated this very word
differently in Deuteronomy, chap, iv., v. 49. It of course follows that,
as Moses never crossed the river Jordan, he could not have been the
author of the verses in which the expression occurs:--
Deuteronomy, chap, ii., v. 12. This could not have been written by
Moses, as in his day the Children of Israel had not even reached, much
less entered into possession of the promised land:--
Deuteronomy, chap, xxxiii. It is scarcely probable that Moses wrote a
chapter containing phrases such as 'the man of God, Moses, {7} blessed
the Children of Israel before his death,' 'Moses commanded us a law,'
&c:--Deuteronomy, chap, xxxiv. I do not consider it necessary to reason
upon the proposition that a man cannot write an account of his own death
and burial, or to endeavour to prove that he cannot relate that his
grave remains undiscovered to the present day. Beside which, the names
used in this chapter are those which were given to the places after the
Israelites had obtained possession of the land, and which could not have
been known in the time of Moses. The same remark applies to Deuteronomy,
chap, iv., v. 43, in which the reader will at once discover a glaring
anachronism, as it is impossible Bezer, Gilead, and Golan, could have
been called Bezer of the Reubenites, Gilead of the Gadites, and Golan
of the Mannassites, until after those tribes had conquered and taken
possession of Bezer, Gilead, and Golan respectively, which they did not
do until after the death of Moses.
In Dr. Cooper's able letter to Professor Silliman, Spinoza's 'Tractates
Theologico-Politicus,' Pere Simon's critical history of the Old
Testament, Voltaire's 'Philosophical Dictionary,' Volney upon Ancient
History, as also in the notes to Volney's 'Ruins,' and in Thomas Paine's
'Age of Reason,' part 2, the reader will find the arguments I have used
more fully elaborated.
In Professor Newman's 'Phases of Faith,' pp. 83 and 84, there is an
eloquent repudiation of the attempts at argument of those theologians
who contend for the Mosaic Pentateuch. (The word Pentateuch is a
compound Greek word, meaning five books.)
Why should we acknowledge Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy? We have positive evidence that he
was not the writer of very many portions, and we have no evidence at all
to support the assertion that he wrote a single line of either of the
five books.
In Voltaire's dialogue between the monk and the honest man, the
following remarks occur:--
'1.--It seems difficult that Moses could have written the Pentateuch
which we attribute to him, in the desert. If his people came from
Egypt, where they had lived, says the author, 400 years (although he is
mistaken in 200 years), the book would, probably, have been written in
Egyptian, and we are told it was in Hebrew. It must have been graven
upon stone or wood, because, in the time of Moses, they had no other
mode of writing. This was a very difficult art, and one which required
long preparations, since it was necessary to polish the wood or the
stone. It does not appear that this art would have been exercised in a
desert, where, according to the book itself, the Jewish horde were not
able to make their own clothes and shoes, and where God was obliged to
work a continual miracle during forty years to preserve their vestments
without decaying, and the coverings of their legs and feet. It is so
true that they were only able to write upon stone, that the author of
the book of Joshua says that Deuteronomy was written upon an altar of
rough stones, plastered with mortar. It appears Joshua did not even
imagine this book was durable. {8} '2.--Those men who are most versed
in antiquity think these books were written more than 700 years after
Moses. They found this opinion upon that which is spoken of the Kings of
Edom and Israel, when there were no kings till a long time after Moses;
upon the position of the cities, which is false if the books were
written in the desert, and true if they were written at Jerusalem; upon
the names of the cities and small towns of which these books speak,
which were neither built nor called by the names there given them till
many ages afterwards, &c.'
Previous to my analysis of the first chapter of Genesis, I shall quote
from an able letter which appeared in a provincial paper a short time
since, and in which I fully concur.
'Before entering into a detailed examination of the Mosaic narrative,
I will glance at the order and operation of its incidents. This is the
more necessary, as the sequence of those operations becomes a leading
and important feature in the final deductions.
'Genesis, read in its literal sense, teaches that, on the first day God
directed light to be, and divided light from darkness, calling the light
day and darkness night, 'On the second day He placed a firmament to
divide the waters, gathering the waters together and forming dry land,
which He commanded to bring forth grass and herbs yielding seed, and
trees yielding fruit.
'On the fourth day He placed lights in the firmament to give light upon
the earth; and, on the same day, He made two great lights, the greater
to rule the day, the lesser the night; and he also made the stars, and
placed them in the firmament to give light upon the earth.
On the fifth day the sea was commanded to bring forth the living
creature that had life, and the fowl that might fly above the earth in
the open firmament.
'The great whales were also created on that day, and every living thing
that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind,
and every winged fowl after his kind.
'The first part of the sixth day opens with the creation of the beasts
of the earth, and cattle, and everything that creepeth on the earth;
consummating the mighty work with the creation of man.
'My task is to prove that, so far as geology and the sister sciences
have examined into the results of this creation, neither the order,
the mode, nor the period of operations can, on physical evidences, be
sustained.
'"God said, let there be light, and there was light." We have here a
fiat originating light; but from what physical source was that luminous
effect evolved? Neither sun nor moon was yet made; not a single star had
twinkled in the heavens; nor was a firmament or atmosphere placed, as
a vehicle for the rays. By what natural law could there be light? The
common rudiments of Physics teach us that air diffuses the solar beams,
thereby causing the brightness of that portion of light called, from
the earliest recorded period, "day." Without that diffusive medium, the
heavenly bodies would be sharply {9} defined balls of apparent fire, in
the profoundly black vault of heaven. Science has never, hitherto, found
a substitute for the sun; nor research discovered a period since the
earth existed, having evening and morning, without one.
'The terms "evening and morning" of a day have, from all recorded time,
conveyed to the mind distinct impressions; evening, that portion of sun
light immediately preceding and succeeding its apparent departure or
disappearance below our horizon; morning, that portion of light that
immediately precedes and succeeds its apparent rising above. They also
imply two other divisions of time, night and mid-day. Now, we have
the direct conclusive evidence daily exhibited, that the sun, or its
luminous atmosphere, by recognised laws and combinations, lights the
world; and that darkness, as a necessary consequence, follows its
absence.
'If the earth had existed independently of the sun, it would have been
a wanderer in space, under circumstances which are decidedly
inconceivable. Yet Genesis relates that there was light, without a sun
to give it forth, or medium to diffuse its rays. We have also involved
in this order of creation the phenomena of a diurnal rotation, indicated
without any central source of light to make the period or time of
revolution, and a planet revolving in an orbit without a centre round
which to revolve. Scientific observations and deductions, every day
evidences of the physical laws that govern our solar system, lead
clearly to the conclusion that the sun, 140,000 times larger than the
earth, was the first born. Genesis asserts that our pigmy earth was its
precursor.
'Whence, without sun or moon or stars, did this light, in accordance
with any known natural law, proceed; and how was the division of evening
and morning of the first day indicated?
'The second day's creation again gives us an evening and morning without
any arrangement to measure those divisions of time, and still without
any source from which light could proceed. What the waters were above
the firmament or atmosphere, I cannot discover; certainly clouds are not
_above_ the firmament or atmosphere, but _floating in it_; and of any
other aqueous aggregations _above the firmament_ we know nothing.
'In the third day's creation we have dry land appearing, and grass and
herb yielding seed, and fruit trees yielding fruit brought forth.
'We have, as yet, had no sun to shine on the earth created, to give
colour to the leaves or to the flowers; to ripen the seeds of herbs
yielding seed, or the fruit of trees yielding fruit. Neither does
Genesis mention any other creation of plants; we must therefore infer
this creation originated all the vegetable world.
'The present number of named species of plants is about 280,000, spread
in provinces over the known world. The greater part of this large
number are peculiar in their habits, and arbitrary in their provinces of
growth. The palms of the tropics would die in the ungenial atmosphere of
the northern hemisphere; and the plants that flourish under the chilling
blasts of the Arctic Regions would wither under {10} the scorching suns
of the Torrid Zone. It is, therefore, a preliminary question--was this
a multitudinous creation, assorted to their several localities, or
a creation of one or two plants of a class from whence all the rest
proceeded? If the former is alleged, I ask, as the ordered world was
then only two days old, what provision was there, by known laws, to
meet numerous physical wants of this immense creation? Were they created
perfect plants, as we are informed they were, yielding seed, or only the
germs for future growth? If perfect plants, I apprehend the periodical
rings, the distinctive mark of the exogens, would, by natural laws, be
wanting; but, I suppose, added in the plants proceeding from the
parent stem. We have, then, a _development_ process at once admitted; a
process, I conceive, manifestly opposed to the Mosaic narrative.
'Of the oneness of vegetable "creation," "making," or "formation,"
Genesis leaves no doubt. Now Geology, or rather palaeontology, adduces
many proofs which, to unbiassed minds, I apprehend, will be conclusive,
that such was not the case; but, on the contrary, the vegetable world
progressed with the altered structural and climatic conditions of the
earth. This is evidenced by the presence of special fossil vegetable
productions in certain strata, and the absence of others. Negative
evidence may, in some cases, be inconclusive; but it must be borne in
mind that there are certain conditions or collateral circumstances which
impart to _negative_ the force and conclusiveness of _positive_ and
direct affirmative testimony. Thus, in considering the value of that
evidence in favour of the existence of a certain class of vegetable
life at any given period, if we find (says the Rev. B. Powell) that
some vegetable forms existed, and a fitness at the same period for the
existence of others, the non-appearance of the latter in such cases is
tantamount to "non-existence." On evidence thus valued we will inquire
into the simultaneous creation and existence of the vegetable world as
related in the 11th and 12th verses.
'Through nearly the entire range of the immense Silurian deposits we
find only traces of algae, the lowest form of plants of the Thallogens.
Sir R. J. Murchison says, "there are _no traces of land plants_ in the
great mass of the Silurian rocks."
'The first evidence we have in the Devonian of terrestrial vegetation
is a doubtful specimen of the fern tribe; yet, through these immense
periods, a large surface of dry land is evidenced by the extent of
the sedimentary deposits of the earlier stratified formations; for, as
Professor Nicoll observes, "any sedimentary deposition implies not only
the existence of a sea in which its materials were deposited, but of
lands from which they were derived."
'When we enter on the Carboniferous, we "are surrounded by the spoils
of the first great woody era." Now, during the Carboniferous period, it
cannot be denied that we have every requisite for supporting vegetable
life, and the most undeniable evidence of its existence by the
fossiliferous preservation of near 500 species. These were peculiar to
the Carboniferous period. They died away and have not left one species
specifically the same with our present vegetation. {11} 'Further, there
is scarcely any evidence of a true exogen up to and through the vast and
immeasurable periods of the coal measures; and he who dreams that, in
the woods of the primeval world there flourished the oak, the elm,
and the hundreds of our other forest productions, introduces in
the landscape a feature equally immaginative to the wildest Eastern
allegory. Of the great family of the leguminosae we have no trace until
we come to the London clay, forming a part of the eocene series. In
the same formation (deposited in the geological calculation tens of
thousands of years past, and hundreds of thousands of years subsequent
to the Carboniferous era) we have abundance of fossil fruits---palm
nuts, custard apples, and the gourd and melon family. That the most
delicate and perishable parts of vegetable structure can be preserved
through immense periods of time, is shown by the state of these, and
also of the fossil ligneous coverings of nuciferous fruits, cones of
firs, and even the indication of flowers. This preservation of parts of
fructification, and the pollen of coniferae, displays the art with
which nature embalms her relics. Who, having examined the fossils of the
Carboniferous beds, can fail being struck with amazement at the
clear and distinct tracing of leaves and forms of the most delicate
articulation and structure? We have, also, in our coal measures, found
trees of species long extinct, thirty to forty feet high, with roots
attached as they grew _in situ_.
'These were of a structure far more liable to perish than the hard,
close grained exogens of our days. But palaeontology discloses that
nature has been guided in her formations by certain laws pre-eminently
evidenced by her vegetable productions.
'A large portion of the earth's surface, we may infer from analogy, in
the Carboniferous ages had the appearance of an immense Polynesia of
equable temperature, where her peculiar vegetable productions grew in
immense profusion, and, for their species, attained gigantic size.
'Immediately after this period, land vegetation almost disappears; and
not until the deposition of the tertiaries do we find the dawning of
new species of varied structures. After entering thereon, an entirely
different view opens to us. Birch, pines, and evergreen shrubs, species
of the orange and gourd families, of the leguminosae and mallows,
abound. We have here wherewith to make a forest, a garden, a feast. Now
all these floras depart in type more or less from their predecessors;
each in its turn died out, as Buffon emphatically states, because "time
fought against them." They are peculiar to the days of their existence;
but the past and the present unite in proclaiming, trumpet-tongued, that
these multitudinous species had neither one centre nor one period of
creation. The remarkable statement of the much-regretted Professor
Edward Forbes, in his presidential address to the Geological Society
in 1854, of the fauna or animal life of the creation, applies more
strongly, if possible, to the flora. "More evident does it become
every day," said that eminent naturalist, "that the old notion of an
_universal primaeval_ fauna is _untenable_, and that at {12} all epochs,
from the earliest preserved to us to the latest, there were natural
history provinces in geographical space."
'Now we find that, although seeds, herbs, and flowers and plants were
stated to have been "created," "made," or "formed," on the third day,
we find no evidence of their existence during periods incalculable
subsequent to the appearance of animal life. Any short period of
_non-appearance_ might not satisfy the requirements for the proof
of "non-existence;" but the astounding fact or the absence of the
vegetation specifically the same as the present, through all the
intervening series from the earliest dawn of life to the tertiary, can
leave no doubt on any unbiassed or candid mind of their "non-existence"
in the early ages of the created world, and of their subsequent altered
structure. May we not fairly argue and expect that in such multitudinous
species some evidence of their existence during enormous periods
(especially when we find remains of other vegetable forms and animal
life abound) would appear. And if this one day's work does not disclose
the whole vegetable creation, when or at what period did the subsequent
one take place?
'I apprehend I have shown circumstances surrounding the negative
evidence, to give to the non-appearance of land vegetation through the
periods of the Silurian and Devonian the force of proof of nonexistence.
'I also submit that I have shown, by direct evidence, that there was
no oneness of creation of vegetable life, but that altered forms and
structure were peculiar to periods in which they flourished; and
that there never did exist any immense primaeval flora as narrated in
Genesis.
'I have thus far had the task of showing how negative evidence,. in the
non-appearance and the subsequent varied forms, contradict the order of
oneness in the creation or "formation" of vegetable life.
'I will now produce positive evidence bearing upon the same
discrepancies. We have in the third day the creation of vegetable life,
but _no animal life_ until the fifth day--then we have (we must be
excused reiteration) fish and fowl and the whales, whilst on the sixth
and last day were brought forth creeping things. The first sign of
animal life yet discovered is of the radiate class, in the lowest
zone of the lower Silurian. We have another class of animal life, the
_articulata_,
in the same zone; and we have some three hundred species of molluscs
through the silurian. Nay, so large is the last named class at this
early period, that it is denominated by American geologists "the age
of molluscs." I must remind our readers that during the whole of this
immeasurable age, we have not a single authenticated _land plant_; nay,
further, we have _fish_, the creation of the _fifth_ day, before aught
of the _third day's_ creation appears.
'We have, also, a reptilian vertebrate land animal in the Devonian ages
incalculably before the appearance of any seed bearing herbs or fruit
bearing plants. Here, then, is positive and direct evidence of the
appearance of types of the four great groups of animal life--the
_radiate_, the _articulate_, the molusca, and the vertebrata--not a
few hours {13} or days or months, or a few years, but thousands upon
thousands of years before a single evidence of the seed-bearing and
fruit-bearing plants of the first day's creation existed. It must not be
said they might have existed yet are not preserved, for this is opposed
to the facts previously stated of the preservation of the algae and
fucoids during these periods, and of the immense flora during the
subsequent coal formation, and the pollen, flowers, fruits, leaves,
and trees in still younger formations. Nor can it be met by an argument
against the fitness of the condition of the earth at this time.
'If, on the other hand, it is urged, Where are the evidences of the
existence of these several forms of life at the periods stated? I
answer, the facts bearing out my assertions will be found recorded in
Lyell, Murchison, Phillips, and Morris (the collectors from the several
strata named), all geological writers of repute; and the fossil forms
themselves can be examined in the museums of the country.'
Amongst the many works which have been issued for the purpose of
explaining away the discrepancies between Geology and Genesis, is one by
Dommick McCausland, entitled 'Sermons in Stones,' and the following is
a portion of the mode of harmonising pursued by the author. While
admitting that the transactions mentioned in the first chapter of
Grenesis could not be brought within the compass of six days, it is
urged by Mr. McCausland that the scene of the creation was presented to
Moses 'In a series of visions, each separate one occupying an evening
and a morning, that is to say, an intermediate night, _the season of
visions or dreams_. So that, in commencing our task of making revelation
reasonable, we are to imagine that Moses dreamed the whole of the
history of the creation.
But even this hypothesis is open to objection. What 'scene' could
'present to the vision of Moses' (if we admit Moses to be the dreamer)
an earth without form and void, especially with darkness upon the face
of it? It is true that, if you suppose the writer dreamed the whole
story of the creation, it will account for much that is otherwise most
improbable; for we all know what strange images are conjured before
us in our dreaming moments, sometimes they are compounds, sometimes
reversals, of our waking experience.
McCausland proceeds, 'It is well known that the transactions of years
are often compressed, in a dream, into the space of a few minutes; on
the same principle, the operations of the divine author of creation,
which _may_ have occupied a long series of years, may have been
presented to Moses as the events of a single day.' What may have been or
may not have been, is hardly sufficient to base an argument upon. It is
most extraordinary that, in discussions upon this subject, the reverend
advocates arrogate to themselves the right of conjecturing 'What God
meant to do,' 'What God's intentions were,' 'What might have happened
before this occurred or that was prevented,' 'That this is literal,'
'That that is allegorical,' etc., etc.; and yet, while they are
conjecturing and supposing outside the text to an unlimited extent,
it becomes rank blasphemy to advance an opinion to the plain English
meaning of the text itself. I am afraid that Moses {14} is not the only
dreamer; for a few pages further I find this remarkable sentence,
'We know from Geology, in confirmation of Scripture, that there was
a beginning, when the universe was formed out of nothing'!! In which
strata or in what rock was this knowledge found? Are we to be told in
the present day that in the universe we find evidence which convinces
us that there was a period when the substance of that universe did not
exist--when there was nothing? Why, the very form of words conveys
an absurd and contradictory meaning. It is impossible for man, in his
boldest flights of imagination or doubting, to annihilate existence; he
may, in his fancy, vary its modes, but he cannot, even in his wildest
moods, ignore its substance.
Of the fiat, 'let there be light.' the harmonizer says, 'This divine
command and the result of it does not negative the previous existence
of light. It only conveys the information that light was commanded to
shine. The sun had sent forth his rays from the date of the creation,
but the black misty envelope of the deep could not be penetrated until
the divine fiat went forth for the advent of light to its surface.'
Quoting Genesis, chap, i, v. 14 to 19, he says, 'With respect to this
language, all philologists agree that it does not mean that the sun,
moon, and stars were for the first time called into existence at this
period of the creation.' This is not true; if the verses mean anything,
they positively do mean that the sun, moon, and stars were, for the
first time, created on the fourth day, and it is only the evident
falsity of this statement which has compelled religious philologists to
twist 'the language' into a spiritual meaning.
We learn from such works as the 'Sermons in Stones,' that the warmest
advocates of scriptural history find so glaring a discordance as to
immediately compel them to relinquish the literal version; with the
strongest faith they cannot believe in light before the sun--they cannot
reverse the order of the different strata as revealed by the science of
geology, and they therefore tell you that you must call in your fancy
(or rather _their_ fancy) to the aid of your revelation, and, by
subtracting from, or liberally adding to, the words of the text, they
will melt the strongest contradiction. You must read prayerfully, that
is, you must be prepared to cast away your senses every time they are
opposed to your Bible.
'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' The word here
translated God is [------] (Alehim or Elohim) which is a plural noun
(_vide_ Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, article [------], and although
translated by the singular word God, it is often associated with plural
adjectives, pronouns, and verbs, see Genesis, chap, i, v. 26, chap,
iii, y. 22, chap, xi, v. 7; nay more, on the same orthodox authority
we learn, that in many other passages the translators have ignored the
plural accompaniments for the purpose of supporting the orthodox theory,
and yet we are told in the present day that the Bible does not want
retranslation. It has been before pointed out that there is a double
creation narrated, one from Genesis, chap, i, v. 1 to chap. ii, v. 3;
in this the only word used is the plural word Alehim, or the {15} Gods
(that is, if Alehim be either God or Gods as it has been differently
translated; elsewhere we find the expression 'God' applied to
Moses--this would lead us to doubt as to the precise meaning of the
word. I am told by some of my reverend friends that the meaning of the
word God is varied according to the mode of printing; if with a capital
letter 'God,' it means an incomprehensible anything they like, if with
a small initial, 'god,' it means an inferior anything you like). Volney,
in the notes to his 'Ruins of Empires,' says, 'If we further observe
that the root of the word _Elohim_ signifies strong or powerful, and
that the Egyptians called their decans strong and powerful leaders,
attributing to them the creation of the world, we shall presently
perceive that the Book of Genesis affirms neither more nor less than
that the world was created by the _decans_, by those very genii whom,
according to Sanconiathon, Mercury excited against Saturn, and who were
called _Elohim_. It may be further asked why the plural substantive
_Elohim_ is made to agree with the singular verb bara (the Elohim
creates). The reason is, that after the Babylonish captivity, the unity
of the Supreme Being was the prevailing opinion of the Jews; it was
therefore thought proper to introduce a pious solecism in language,
which it is evident had no existence before Moses. Thus, in the names of
the children of Jacob, many of them are compounded of a plural verb, to
which Elohim is the nominative case understood; as _Raouben_ (Reuben),
_they have looted upon me_, and _Samaonm_ (Simeon), _they have granted
me my prayer_, to wit, the Elohim. The reason of this etymology is to be
found in the religious creeds of the wives of Jacob, whose Gods were the
taraphim of Laban, that is, the angels of the Persians, and the Egyptian
decans.' The other account commences with the fourth verse of the second
chapter, and in this the words translated 'Lord God' are [------]; what
these really mean it is impossible to say, unless they mean Chief of
the Gods. Parkhurst translates it into a trinity. The word [------]
(rendered in our version Jehovah) simply represents time past, present,
and future. The two accounts differ considerably; in the first we find
water forming an important feature, and ultimately drained off so that
the dry land appears; in the second we have the land dry without water,
and it becomes necessary to send a mist to water the face of the earth.
Genesis, chap, i, v. 1 to 27. Whoever wrote these verses must either
have been an inspired man, a dupe, or a knave--that is, he could not
have gathered from tradition, because here tradition is outstepped; it
could not have been known by man, as he was not yet made; he must either
have received it from God, or have been deceived by man, or must have
intended to deceive man himself. If inspired, it is a pity God did not
explain the creation of light before the sun ( verse 3), the creation of
herbs and fruit trees bearing seed and fruit before there was a sun to
ripen the fruit and bring the seed to maturity (verse 11), the creation
of 'female-man' in his own image (verse 27), etc. By verse 29 it appears
that God intended man to be a vegetarian; by Genesis, chap, ix, v. 3, he
gave them all kinds {16} of cattle for food; and by Leviticus, chap, xi,
v. 12, he forbade man to eat certain kinds there specified; one of God's
attributes notwithstanding all this is immutability. Chap. ii. v. 2
and 3, he rested on the seventh day and blessed it and sanctified it,
because in it he had rested:--see Deuteronomy, chap, v, v. 12 to 15;
which is the correct reason for the sanctifying the sabbath day?
*Chapter ii, v. 4. This, as it is translated, seems ridiculous: 'the
generations of the heavens and the earth.' What is the meaning of this
phrase? What are the generations? From a careful reading of verses? 5,
6, and 7, it would appear that God did not make man out of the dry dust;
and that it was not until a mist had watered the whole face of the earth
that he formed man. This may account for the creed of the negro, who
believed that God made Adam from mud, and who assigned as a reason that
dry dust would not stick together. In verse 9 are mentioned the 'tree of
life' and the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil.' If these expressions
occurred in the 'Arabian Nights' tales, we might not regard them as
inappropriate, for in such books, which make no pretensions to truth,
we expect to find tales of ghosts, witches, men carried off in fiery
chariots, devils walking about bodily, donkeys speaking, and men passing
through furnaces unhurt; but when we are told that a book is inspired by
the God of truth, and in its early pages find mention made of a tree, by
eating the fruit of which a man might live for ever, and that by eating
of the fruit of another tree, a man would get knowledge of good and
evil, with other fabulous expressions of a like nature, we cannot help a
feeling of astonishment.
Of verses 10 to 14 Voltaire speaks as follows:--'According to this
version, the earthly paradise would have contained nearly a third part
of Asia and of Africa. The sources of the Euphrates and the Tigris are
sixty leagues distant from each other, in frightful mountains bearing no
possible resemblance to a garden. The river which borders Ethiopia,
and which can be no other than the Nile, commences its course at the
distance of more than a thousand leagues from the sources of the Tigris
and Euphrates; and if the Pison means the Phasis, it is not a little
surprising that the source of a Scythian river and that of an African
one should be situated on the same spot. We must therefore look for some
other explanation, and for other rivers. Every commentator has got up a
Paradise of his own.'
Dr. John Pye Smith suggests that the description is antediluvian, and
that the deluge changed the courses of many streams; that hence we
must not expect to find any spot conforming to the exact geographical
description. If antediluvian, Moses did not write it.
'Verse 15. "The Lord then took the man and put him into the Garden of
Eden that he might cultivate it."
Voltaire continues:--
'It is very respectable and pleasant for a man to "cultivate his
garden," but it must have been somewhat difficult for Adam to have
dressed and kept in order a garden of a thousand leagues in length, even
although he had been supplied with some assistants. {17} Commentators on
this subject, therefore, we again observe, are completely at a loss, and
must be content to exercise their ingenuity in conjecture. Accordingly,
these four rivers have been described as flowing through numberless
different territories.'
Verses 16 and 17. It is a matter of great difficulty to refrain from
ridiculing the statement that there exist trees bearing such fruit, and
after overcoming this difficulty, it is still less comprehensible why
God should forbid man to acquire a knowledge of good and evil. Would not
man's free access to this knowledge appear more in accordance with the
character of a just and merciful God? and is not knowledge necessary
to man, especially when we find the serpent 'more subtle than other
animals,' plotting man's destruction?
Verses 18 and 19. It is somewhat remarkable that immediately after the
Lord God had declared his intention of making a helpmeet
for Adam, that he formed all the beasts of the field and fowls of the
air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. This is
open to many objections; first, see chap, i, v. 21, but as we must admit
there are two distinct accounts of the creation, I will not further
burden my work with the contradictions between them; second, the strong
improbability of the story of the Lord God bringing the beasts and fowl
to see what Adam would call them; either the Lord God had fore-ordained
the names to be applied by Adam, or the theologians are wrong--either
the Lord God foreknew what names Adam would give each bird and beast,
in which case Genesis is incorrect, or prescience, one of the attributes
applied to Deity, is deficient; third, the immense time which this
naming of every bird and beast must have taken, especially when we
remember that Adam was waiting for his wife--it almost appears as if
verse 18 should come after verse 20 to make sense of the story. Lawrence
says that the account of all the animals being brought before Adam is
zoologically impossible ('Lectures on Man,' p. 169). Voltaire says that
if Adam had named the animals according to their various natures, he
must have either previously eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge,
or it would apparently have answered no end for God to have interdicted
him from it. He must have already known more than the Royal Society or
the Academy of Sciences of Paris. The mode of manufacturing the woman
from the rib of the man has been the subject of much controversy, but is
only noticed here as another illustration of the fabulous character of
the book we are dealing with.
Having passed through the two accounts of the creation contained in the
anonymous book I am examining, I shall strive to ascertain the source
from whence some of the doctrines and traditions contained in this book
were derived. Aware of the magnitude of my task, I will now only deal
with authorities to whom no exception should be taken by the religious
reader. One is the pious and erudite Sir William Jones, the other the
Reverend Thomas Maurice. Of the claims of the first to our attention I
will say nothing, for every man ought to be more or less acquainted with
the character of {18} the great linguist; of the second I can only say
that I find his work issued under the countenance of the heads of the
Church, and supported by some of the first men of his day.
When, at the present day, you point out to a Christian the striking
coincidence in many points between the Bible and the Hindoo and other
sacred writings, he will tell you that the latter have been stolen from
the former. Is this the fact? I think not. Maurice, in his preface to
his 'Indian Antiquities,' says, 'The stupendous system of the Brahmin
Chronology, _extending back through millions of years_; the _obstinate
denial of a general deluge_ by those Brahmins; the perplexing doctrine
of a trinity in the divine nature constantly recurring in the operations
of Brahma, Vishnu, and Seeva, _a doctrine not to be traced to any
immediate connexion with the Jewish nation_; these were among the
_delicate_ topics which neither the clerical nor historical functions
in which I had engaged would allow of being passed over in silence. As I
advanced in my inquiries, I found that the primeval histories of all
the ancient empires of the earth amount to little more than the romantic
dreams of astronomical mythology.'
Weigh well this last sentence, read your Bibles attentively, and ask
yourselves in what particular feature is Genesis superior to the Shastra
or Bhagavat.
The following is from the Manava Sastra, the words of Menu, Son of
Brahma, as quoted in vol. i of the 'Asiatic Researches,' page 244:--
'"This world (says he) was all darkness, undiscernible,
undistinguishable, altogether as in profound sleep; till the
self-existent invisible God, making it manifest with five elements and
other glorious forms, perfectly expelled the gloom. He, desiring to
raise up various creatures by an emanation from his own glory, first
created the _waters_, and impressed them with a power of motion: by that
power was produced a golden egg, blazing like a thousand suns, in which
was born Brahma, self-existing, the great parent of all rational beings.
The waters are called nárà, since they are the offspring of _Nara or
Iswara_; and thence was _Náryána_ named, because his first _ayana_, or
_moving_, was on them.
'"That which is, the invisible cause, eternal, self-existing, but
un-perceived, becoming masculine _from neuter_, is celebrated among all
creatures by the name of Brahmá. That God, having dwelled in the egg
through revolving years, Himself meditating on himself, divided it into
two equal parts; and from those halves formed the heavens and the earth,
placing in the midst the subtle ether, the eight points of the world,
and the permanent receptacle of waters."'
Sir William Jones admits that the Vedas are 'very ancient, and far older
than any other Sanscrit works,' but assigns to the Manava Sastra, and
the Bhagavat a later date than 'the Scriptures of Moses,' on the
ground that 'the nakedness of the Hebrew dialect, metre, and style must
convince every man of their superior antiquity.' On the same page Sir
W. Jones, however, states that the Brahmans affirm that the Vedas, the
Manava Sástra, and the Bhagavat, were all {19} written in the first age
of the world. Is it honest to reject the testimony of the Priests of
Brahma while we are content to place our reason in the hands of the
Priests of our own Church?
My reasons for not believing the Manava Sastra and Bhagavat were stolen
from the Jews are as follows: first, the Bhagavat, admitted to be much
more ancient than our alleged Christian era, contains the history of
Chrishna, which is, in very many particulars, identical with that of
Christ, and as it is absolutely impossible that the Hindoos could have
stolen the history of Christ one thousand years prior to his existence,
I am inclined to conceive it more probable that in our Bible we have
throughout appropriated from the Hindoos; second, I deny that it has
ever been shown that the Jewish nation is nearly so ancient as the
Hindoo, and I am, therefore, puzzled in attempting to charge the more
ancient nation with stealing the traditions of the modern one. It would
be nearly as reasonable if a Frenchman were to charge the English with
stealing the history of William the Conqueror from the Americans.
Sir William Jones further says, 'I am persuaded that a connexion
subsisted between the old idolatrous nations of Egypt, India, Greece,
and Italy, long before they emigrated to their several settlements, and
consequently before the birth of Moses;' and what do we find? Why this,
that the religions of Egypt, India, Greece, and Italy, have a wonderful
similarity to one another, and yet we are told that the religion of
the Jewish nation (which contains something common to them all) was not
stolen from them, but they, the ancient religions, were stolen from the
more modern nation. It would be as probable were I to tell you that the
Royal Society in London was founded and originated in consequence of
something which fell last year from the lips of Louis Napoleon.
The third chapter of Genesis contains, according to its heading, an
account of man's 'most shameful fall.' It will be in vain to attempt to
treat the contents of this chapter as a relation of actual occurrences.
The following is a summary: a serpent, walking erect on its tail instead
of crawling on its belly, tempts Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, urging
that Adam has been deceived by God; the woman (not at all surprised at
being addressed by one 'in such a questionable shape') saw that the tree
was good for food (how she saw this does not appear) and ate and gave to
her husband. Upon eating, their eyes are opened, and they are ashamed
of their nakedness, and sew fig leaves together to make breeches. This
sewing was before the invention of needles. The species of this fruit
has formed the subject of much conjecture; one kind only has since been
known to confer on man and woman a knowledge of their nakedness after
mutually partaking thereof, and it has therefore been suggested that
this chapter is an allegorical representation of the union of the sexes.
After eating, Adam and Eve hear the 'voice of the Lord God walking,' and
they hide themselves. It is not easy to understand how either God or his
voice could walk in the garden, nor why he should walk in the cool of
the day, as we cannot suppose heat to affect him. {20} The reason Adam
gives for hiding himself is not a correct one; he was not naked unless
his fig-leaf garment had fallen to pieces. God having ascertained that
Adam had disobeyed his command, cursed the serpent and commanded it to
eat dust and go upon its belly all the days of its life; God also cursed
the ground. It does not appear, however, that he carried out the threat
contained in chap, ii, v. 17; in fact, the serpent appears to have been
more correct in saying to Adam and Eve, 'Ye shall not surely die.'
Some divines would have us believe that by the sin of Adam death was
introduced into the world, and the Rev. Dr. John Pye Smith tells us,
'It is probable, had not man fallen, that, after a continuance in the
earthly state for a period of probation, each individual would have
been translated to a higher condition of existence.' Unfortunately,
this hypothesis will not bear investigation. Professor Newman says,
in relation to this subject, 'A fresh strain fell on the Scriptural
infallibility, in contemplating the origin of death. Geologists assured
us that death went on in the animal creation many ages before the
existence of man. The rocks formed of the shells of animals testify that
death is a phenomenon thousands and thousands of years old; to refer
the death of animals to the sin of Adam and Eve is evidently impossible.
Yet, if not, the analogies of the human to the brute form make it
scarcely credible that man's body can ever have been intended for
immortality. Nay, when we consider the conditions of birth and growth
to which it is subject, the wear and tear essential to life, the new
generations intended to succeed and supplant the old--so soon as the
question is proposed as one of physiology, the reply is inevitable
that death is no accident, introduced by the perverse will of our first
parents, nor any way connected with man's sinfulness, but is purely a
result of the conditions of animal life. On the contrary, St. Paul rests
most important conclusions on the fact, that one man, Adam, by personal
death, brought death upon all his posterity. If this was a fundamental
error, religious doctrine also is shaken.'
Verse 20. 'And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the
mother of all living.' This can hardly be the reason, as Eve was not the
mother of anybody at that time. The word [------] (Adam) means red or
ruby, and [------] (Eve) to show, discover, or declare.
Verse 21. I suppose the most enthusiastic advocate for the literal
reading of the Bible would hardly wish us to picture God as a tailor.
One of the Jewish Rabbis asserts that God clothed Adam and Eve with the
skin of the serpent who had tempted them.
Verse 22. (And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of
us.' One of whom? To whom are these words addressed? It is evident that
the writer of this book believed in a plurality of Gods, and had not
any very elevated ideas in relation to those Gods, for, in the very same
verse, he makes God express fear lest Adam should take or the tree of
life, and eat and live for ever. Does it mean that man's soul was not
then immortal? it cannot mean that man's body could become immortal. If
man's soul was not then capable of living for ever, when did its nature
become changed? {21} Verse 24. 'Cherubim!' This word is ridiculous;
cherubim is the plural of cherub; the is merely a specimen of Bible
orthography. In Walker's Pronouncing Dictionary I find the following
severe remark on the word 'Cherubim:'--Those who understand no language
but their own are apt to commit an unpardonable fault with critics, by
mistaking this word for a singular, and writing the plural "Cherubims."'
It is evident, therefore, that if God inspired the Bible, he did not
inspire the grammar. But what is a cherub? the word [----] (kereb) is
of very doubtful meaning, and seems to have been used to express an
inferior kind of deity. In the seventh edition of Parkhurst's Hebrew
Lexicon, the correspondence between the description of the cherubim in
Ezekiel and the inferior deities in other mythologies is fully and ably
pointed out under this head. Were it not for the length of Parkhurst's
article, I would quote the whole, it constituting an elaborate essay
in which the astronomical origin of every religious system is clearly
proved. An interesting astronomical explanation of the allegory or the
fall is given in pp. 294-5 of 'Volney's Ruins.' Some of the cherubic
figures are a compound of ox, eagle, lion, and man. Are we to imagine
several of these with a flaming sword, guarding the way to the tree of
life?
Having read the third chapter carefully, we are irresistibly driven to
the conclusion that Adam's primitive nature was extremely frail, for he
fell with the first temptation, and no greater evidence of frailty can
be given; yet Adam is the choice work of God, made in his own image.
*Chapter iv contains the history of Cain and Abel, which presents
several remarkable features for our consideration. Cain and Abel both
make sacrifices to the Lord. Why they should so sacrifice does not
appear; they do not seem to have followed the example of Adam, as we
cannot find any history of his sacrificing to the Lord at all. By verses
4 and 5 we find that the Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering,
but unto Cain and his offerings he had not respect. Why is this? Cain's
offerings consist of flowers and fruits, sending up sweet fragrance
to heaven; Abel's offerings are the bleeding carcasses of slaughtered
lambs; yet God, 'with whom there is no respect of persons' (2
Chronicles, chap, xix, v. 7--Romans, chap, ii, v. 11), respects Abel
more than Cain. How was this respect shown? God, by showing favour to
Abel without assigning the least reason for the
Preference, created animosity between the two brothers. God must have
foreknown that this religious strife would end in bloodshed. Religious
strife always has led to war, and it is only because people are growing
larger than their creeds that they now do not fight quite so recklessly
about them.
Verse 7. It is somewhat perplexing to find that, although God is
displeased with Cain, yet he tells him he shall rule over his brother
Abel.
Verse 13. This verse is translated in a very different manner to the
Douay. In our version Cain complains of the severity of his punishment;
in the other, Cain says that his sin is too great for pardon. Which is
right? {22]} Verse 14. What does Cain mean when he says 'Every one that
findeth me shall slay me.' 'Every one 'can only be used when there is
a likelihood of meeting with many persons, yet Cain must have been
well aware that no persons were then in existence beside his father and
mother.
Verse 16. How is it possible that Cain could go out of the presence of
the Lord? (_vide_ Psalm cxxxix, v. 7 to 12).
Verse 17. Who was Cain's wife? According to Genesis, there was only his
mother, Eve, living. 'And he builded a city.' It must have been rather
a remarkable city, built by one man, and inhabited by one man, his wife,
and one child.
Verse 18. Who was Enoch's wife? Perhaps these were what the Mormonites
call 'Spiritual Wives.'
*Chapter v, v. 1. 'This is the _book_ of the generations of Adam.* Books
were not known at the date alleged for the existence of Moses.
Verses 1 and 2 contradict the previous chapters.
The fifth chapter appears to fit on after verse 3 of the second chapter;
and it is rather curious that in the list of Adam's children, Cain
and Abel are not mentioned. Neither are Cain's descendants in any way
referred to. Cain not only went out of the presence of the Lord, but
both he and his wife and family seem entirely to have gone out of sight
of everybody.
Verse 24. 'And Enoch walked with God, and he was not.' The Breeches
Bible, in a marginal note, says that 'to inquire what became of Enoch is
mere curiosity.'
Verse 27. Methusalem must have just died in time to save himself from
drowning.
*Chapter vi, v. 2. 'The Sons of God.' Who are the Sons of God?; How
could God have Sons? Is not Jesus said to be the only Son of God?
Voltaire says of this verse, 'No nation has ever existed, unless perhaps
we may except China, in which some God is not described as having had
offspring upon women. These corporeal Gods frequently descended to visit
their dominions upon earth; they saw the daughters of our race, and
attached themselves to those who were most interesting and beautiful;
the issue of this connexion between Gods and mortals must, of course,
have been superior to other men, thus giants were produced.' But there
is a further objection to our authorised version; the original is not
'Sons of God,' but [----------] (Beni Alehim, Sons of the Gods). In the
mythologies of Greece, Italy, and India, we find the same idea of Gods
having intercourse with women; and it is also remarkable that, although
in many cases the woman bears a child, yet all true believers devoutly
contend for her virginity. Verse 3 seems out of place, it should come in
after 5 or 6; but in any place it is not correct. One hundred and twenty
years is neither the average nor the limit of man's life. What does God
mean when he says 'My Spirit shall not always strive with man?' What
was the striving about? Does the verse mean that God's spirit strove
in vain? What does 'that he also is flesh' mean? Does it mean that the
Lord's spirit and man are both flesh? {23} Verses 5 and 6. God made
mankind and the circumstances which surrounded them, and must have
foreknown what would have been the effect produced upon man; why not
have made better circumstances? Shall we presume either that God had not
the power to have created things differently, or that he is careless
of man's welfare? In what manner did God make known his repentance?
In Numbers, chap, xxiii, v. 19, we are led to believe that God never
repents. Why should God destroy the beasts, creeping things, and fowls?
they surely could not have been parties to man's wickedness. Why should
God repent that he made 'the beasts, the creeping things, and the fowls
of the air?' What does the phrase mean in relation to God, 'it grieved
him at his heart?' The expressions 'repent,' 'grieve,' etc., could
scarcely have been used if the book had been a revelation from a God who
intended to convey to us an idea of his omnipotence and immutability.
The following quotation is from Robert Taylor:--
'What blasphemy! thus to represent the Creator of the world. Omnipotence
repenting that he had made man, sitting upon a stone, and crying like
a child, wringing his hands, tearing nis hair, calling himself all
the fools and idiots he could think of, stamping his foot, cursing,
swearing, and vowing vengeance, that he would not leave a dog nor a rat
alive. We should yet have but a faint idea of the' exceeding sinfulness
of sin, and how poor and impotent language of any kind must be, to
convey to us the emotions of that infinite wisdom and inconceivable
benevolence which repented that he had made man, and grieved that man
was no better than he had made him.
'There can be no doubt at all that such language as this, when used in
relation to the Supreme Being, is used only in gracious condescension to
our ignorance, and in accommodation to the dulness and stupidity of
our powers of conception, which require to be stimulated ana excited by
strong and impassioned figures of speech, ere they can be led to form an
idea at all on sacred subjects.'
Verses 11 and 12. All flesh could not be corrupt; in the previous verse
we are told that Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations.
All flesh being corrupt, flesh and fowl were condemned; but the fish
were allowed to escape. Were the birds more corrupt than the fish? or
were the fish allowed to escape because the concocter of this tale did
not conceive the possibility of their being killed by a flood? By verse
17 it is clear that God intended to destroy every living thing; perhaps
he forgot the fishes.
Verse 14 to chap, viii, v. 19. Of this account Professor Newman says 'It
had become notorious to the public that geologists rejected the idea of
an universal deluge, as physically impossible. Whence could the water
come to cover the highest mountains? Two replies were attempted: 1--The
flood of Noah is not described as universal; 2--The flood was indeed
universal, but the water was added and removed by miracle. Neither
reply, however, seemed to be valid. First, the language respecting the
universality of the flood is as strong as any that could be written;
moreover, it is stated that the {24} tops of the high hills _were all
covered_, and after the water subsides the ark settles on the mountains
of Armenia. Now, in Armenia, of necessity, numerous peaks would be seen
unless the water covered them, and especially Ararat. But a flood that
covered Ararat would overspread all the continents, and leave only a few
summits above. If, then, the account in Genesis is to be received, the
flood was "universal. Secondly, the narrator represents the surplus
water to have come from the clouds, and perhaps from the sea, and again
to drain back into the sea. Of a miraculous _creation and destruction_
of water, he evidently does not dream.
'Other impossibilities come forward: the insufficient dimensions of the
ark to take in all the creatures; the unsuitability of the same climate
to arctic and tropical animals for a full year; the impossibility
of feeding them, and avoiding pestilence; and especially, the total
disagreement of the modern facts of the dispersion of animals, with
the idea that they spread anew from Armenia as their centre. We have no
right to call in a aeries of miracles to solve difficulties of which
the writer was unconscious. The ark itself was expressly devised to
economise miracle, by making a fresh creation of animals needless.'
Voltaire says of the deluge:--
'We consider it as a miracle; first, because all the facts by which God
condescends to interfere in the sacred books are so many miracles.
'Secondly, because the sea could not rise fifteen cubits, or one and
twenty standard feet and a half above the highest mountains without
leaving its bed dry, and, at the same time violating all the laws of
gravity and the equilibrium of fluids, which would evidently require a
miracle.
'Thirdly, because, even although it might rise to the height mentioned,
the ark could not have contained, according to known physical laws, all
the living things of the earth, together with their food, for so long
a time; considering that lions, tigers, panthers, leopards, ounces,
rhinoceroses, bears, wolves, hyenas, eagles, hawks, kites, vultures,
falcons, and all carnivorous animals, which feed on flesh alone, would
have died of hunger, even after having devoured all the other species.
'Fourthly, because the physical impossibilities of an universal deluge,
by natural means, can be strictly demonstrated. The demonstration is as
follows:--
'All the seas cover half the globe. A common measure of their depths
near the shores and in the open ocean, is assumed to be five hundred
feet.
'In order to their covering both hemispheres to the depth of five
hundred feet, not only would an ocean of that depth be necessary over
all the land, but a new sea would, in addition, be required to envelope
the ocean at present existing, without which the laws of hydrostatics
would occasion the dispersion of that other new mass of water five
hundred feet deep, which should remain covering the land. {25} 'Thus,
then, two new oceans are requisite to cover the terraqueous globe nearly
to the depth of five hundred feet.
'Supposing the mountains to be only twenty thousand feet high, forty
oceans each five hundred feet in height would be required to accumulate
on each other, merely in order to equal the height of the mountains.
Every successive ocean would contain all the others, and the last of
them all would have a circumference containing forty times that of the
first.
'In order to form this mass of water, it would be necessary to create
it out of nothing. In order to withdraw it, it would be necessary to
annihilate it.
'What was that abyss which was broken up, or what were the cataracts of
heaven which were opened? Isaac Vossius denies the universality of the
deluge; "_Hoc est piè nugari_." Calmet maintains it, informing us
that bodies have no weight in air, but in consequence of their being
compressed by air. Calmet was not much of a natural philosopher, and
the weight of the air has nothing to do with the deluge. Let us content
ourselves with reading and respecting everything in the Bible, without
comprehending a single word of it.