them, and then substituted in their room a race still viler than the
first.
'How seven pairs of all kinds of clean animals should come from the four
quarters of the globe, together with two pairs of unclean ones, without
the wolves devouring the sheep on the way, or the kites the pigeons,
etc., etc.
'How eight persons could keep in order, feed, and water such an immense
number of inmates, shut up in an ark-for nearly two yeare, for, after
the cessation of the deluge, it would be necessary to have food for all
these passengers for another year, in consequence of the herbage being
so scanty.'
The dimensions of the ark, which are slightly varied according to the
different lengths assigned to the cubit, were between 450 and 574 feet
in length, between 75 and 91 feet in breadth, and 45 and 55 feet in
height. An ark that size must have been a tremendous undertaking for a
man nearly six hundred years old, even with his three sons to help him.
The ark was divided into three stories and many rooms, but only had
one window and one door. The situation of this door is curious, 'in the
side;' if it gave access to all the floors it must have extended from
top to bottom. It is hardly possible to imagine a large number of
animals, civet cats, musk rats, etc., existing in an ark in which
ventilation was so badly provided for; when the door was shut and the
window shut to keep out the rain and water, it must have been absolutely
stifling. But it is impossible to imagine seven of each of the clean
beasts and two of each of the unclean, and seven of each of the birds,
crammed into so small a space. Even if there were room for it, we hear
nothing of any food being collected for the sustenance of all these
birds and beasts. Did they fast? How did Noah know which were clean
and which unclean? {26} Thomas Paine treats the account of the flood as
follows:--
'We have all heard of Noah's flood; and it is impossible to think of the
whole human race, men, women, children, and infants, (except one family)
deliberately drowning, without feeling a painful sensation; that must
be a heart of flint that can contemplate such a scene with tranquillity.
There is nothing in the ancient mythology, nor in the religion of any
people we know of on the globe, that records a sentence of their God, or
of their Gods, so tremendously severe and merciless. If the story be not
true, we blasphemously dishonour God by believing it, and still more so
in forcing, by laws and penalties, that belief upon others. I go now to
show, from the face of the story, that it carries the evidence of not
being true.
'There were no such people as Jews or Israelites in the time that Noah
is said to have lived, and consequently there was no such law as that
which is called the Jewish or Mosaic Law. It is, according to the Bible,
more than six hundred years from the time the flood is said to have
happened to the time of Moses, and, consequently, the time the flood is
said to have happened was more than six hundred years prior to the law
called the law of Moses, even admitting Moses to be the giver of that
law, of which there is great cause to doubt.
'We have here two different epochs, or points of time; that of the
flood, and that of the law of Moses; the former more than six hundred
years prior to the latter. But the maker of the story of the flood,
whoever he was, has betrayed himself by blundering, for he has reversed
the order of the times. He has told the story as if the law of Moses was
prior to the flood; for he has made God to say to Noah, Genesis, chap,
vii, v. 2, "Of every clean beast, thou shalt take to thee by sevens, tne
male and his female, and of beasts that are _not clean_ by two, the male
and his female." This is the Mosaic law, and could only be said after
that law was given, not before. There were no such things as beasts
clean and unclean in the time of Noah--it is nowhere said they were
created so. They were only _declared_ to be so _as meats_, by the Mosaic
law, and that to the Jews only; and there were no such people as Jews in
the time of Noah. This is the blundering condition in which this strange
story stands.
'When we reflect on a sentence so tremendously severe as that of
consigning the whole human race, eight persons excepted, to deliberate
drowning, a sentence which represents the Creator in a more merciless
character than any of those whom we call Pagans ever represented the
Creator to be, under the figure of any of their deities, we ought at
least to suspend our belief of it, on a comparison of the beneficent
character of the Creator with the tremendous severity of the sentence;
but when we see the story told with such an evident contradiction of
circumstances, we ought to set it down for nothing better than a Jewish
fable, told by nobody knows whom, and nobody knows when.
'It is a relief to the genuine and sensible soul of man to find the
story unfounded. It frees us from two painful sensations at once; that
of having hard thoughts of the Creator, on account of the {27} severity
of the sentence; and that of sympathising in the horrid tragedy of a
drowning world. He who cannot feel the force of what I mean is not, in
my estimation of character, worthy the name of a human being.'
The account of the deluge is rather complicated; according to chap,
vii., v. 2 and 5, Noah took inseven pairs of all clean beasts, and one
pair of all unclean, as [------] (Alehim) had commanded him; while, by
v. 8 and 9, it would appear that Noah only took in two of every kind,
as [------] (Jeue or Jehovah) had commanded. This is another specimen
of the confusion in the use of different originals in the manufacture of
the book of Genesis.
Dr. John Pye Smith, in his 'Relation between Geology and the Holy
Scriptures,' admits that he is compelled to the conclusion that the
flood of Noah was not absolutely universal; and with respect to the ark
grounding on Mount Ararat, he says that the state of the summit of
that mount is such that the four men, and four women, and many of the
quadrupeds would have found it utterly impossible to descend. The summit
of Mount Ararat is continually covered with snow and ice.
The olive leaf mentioned in chap, viii., v. 11, is remarkable, as one
would be inclined to imagine it decomposed after remaining under water
for about twelve months.
*Chapter viii., v. 21. 'The Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord
said in his heart.' This is, of course, only a figurative expression;
but it is much to be regretted that, in a book issued from God, an
expression should be found so liable to misconstruction; a literal
reader might imagine that God had a nose and heart.
*Chapter ix., v. 9 and 10. These verses have been much commented on.
Voltaire says:--
'God made a covenant with beasts! What sort of a covenant? Such is the
outcry of infidels. But if he makes a covenant with man, why not with
the beast? It has feeling; and there is something as divine in feeling,
as in the most metaphysical meditation. Besides, beasts feel more
correctly than the greater part of men think. It is clearly by virtue of
this treaty that Francis d'Assisse, the founder of the Seraphic order,
said to the grasshoppers and the hares, "Pray sing, my dear sister
grasshopper; pray browse, my dear brother hare." But what were the
conditions of the treaty? That all animals should devour one another;
that they should feed upon our flesh, and we upon theirs; that,
after having eaten them, we should proceed with wrath and fury to the
extermination of our own race; nothing being, then, wanting to crown
the horrid series of butchery and cruelty, but devouring our fellow men,
after having thus remorselessly destroyed them. Had there been actually
such a treaty as this, it could have been entered into only with the
devil.'
The token of this covenant is to be the rainbow--v. 13. The Geneva
translation has it, 'I _have_ set my bow;' the authorised version,
'I _do_ set my bow;' the Douay,'I _will_ set my bow. Of this latter,
Voltaire remarks-- {28} 'Observe, that the author does not say, I _have_
put my bow in the clouds; he says, I _will_ put; this clearly implies
it to have been the prevailing opinion that there had not always been a
rainbow. This phenomenon is necessarily produced by rain; yet, in this
place, it is represented as something supernatural, exhibited in order
to announce and prove that the earth should no more be inundated. It
is singular to choose the certain sign of rain, in order to assure men
against their being drowned.'
It is quite evident by the context, whichever translation be right, that
the meaning intended to be conveyed is, that the rainbow is to be the
sign to remind God and the people and beasts of his covenant with them.
This covenant, like many treaties made with high powers, is open to
misconstruction. God only covenants not again to destroy _all_ flesh by
a flood, but it is quite within the terms of his covenant to overflow a
few rivers, and sweep flocks, herds, villages, and villagers off a large
tract of country; this is occasionally done, and the rainbow cheers the
survivors with the thought that, as everybody is not to be drowned at
once, they are safe till another time.
Verse 16. It is implied that, but for the rainbow, God might forget his
covenant; surely this cannot be a revelation from an unchangeable God,
who could never forget.
Verse 21. Noah, if he was a just and perfect man before the flood, seems
to have soon degenerated, although he had just had cognizance of so
fearful an example of God's vengeance. 'His tent.' The word [------]
does not mean his tent; the final [--] is a feminine termination, and
the word should be translated 'her tent;' but to save revelation from
seeming ridiculous, the translators have taken a slight liberty with the
text.
Verse 25. It is hard to understand why Canaan should be cursed because
his father, Ham, accidentally walked into a tent and saw Noah naked. If
Ham even deserved a curse, it is no reason for cursing his son, who was
no party to his father's offence.
*Chapter x. There are scarcely any of the names contained in this or the
preceding or following chapter, until we come to Abraham, which are now
used amongst the Jews. Paine says, 'If they (the Jews) affix the same
idea of reality to those names as they do to those that follow after,
the names of Adam, Abel, Seth, etc., would be as common among the Jews
of the present day, as are those of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and
Aaron.
'In the superstition they have been in, scarcely a Jew family would be
without an _Enoch_, as a presage of his going to heaven as ambassador
for the whole family. Every mother who wished that the _days_ of her son
_might be long in the land_, would call him _Methuselah_; and all the
Jews that might have to traverse the ocean would be named Noah, as a
charm against shipwreck and drowning.'
*Chapter xi., v. 1. If the whole earth was of one tongue, what do verses
5, 20, and 31 of the preceding chapter mean?
Voltaire says, 'People have wished to know how the children of {29}
Noah, after having divided among themselves the islands of the nations,
and established themselves in divers lands, with each one his particular
language, family, and people, should all find themselves in the plain of
Shinaar to build there a tower, saying, "Let us make us a name, lest we
be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."
'The book of Genesis speaks of the states which the sons of Noah
founded. It has related how the people of Europe, Africa, and Asia all
came to Shinaar, speaking one language only, and purposing the same
thing.
'The Vulgate places the deluge in the year of the world 1656, and the
construction of the Tower of Babel, 1771; that is to say, one hundred
and fifteen years after the destruction of mankind, and even during the
life of Noah.
'Men then must have multiplied with prodigious celerity; all the arts
revived in a very little time. When we reflect on the great number of
trades which must have been employed to raise a tower so high, we are
amazed at so stupendous a work.
'It is a pity that there remains not on the earth, among the profane
authors, one vestige of the famous Tower of Babel; nothing of this
story of the confusion of tongues is found in any book. This memorable
adventure was as unknown to the whole universe, as the names of Noah,
Methusalem, Cain, and Adam and Eve.'
It seems scarcely probable that a multitude of people, forming so many
nations, could be got together in one plain; and if they were, why
should they fear being scattered?
Verse 5. 'The Lord came down.' This idea pervades the book--that is,
that God resides in heaven, above the earth, and that he leaves heaven
occasionally and comes down to earth, and after having finished his
business, goes up again to heaven. The writer appears to have had no
conception that God could see from heaven to earth, but makes God come
down to ascertain whether the tale which had reached him in heaven be
true. Unfortunately, even after ignoring the attribute of omnipresence
in relation to God, the idea is not a correct one. That which is above
me when I look up and pray is not above the New Zealander, if he looks
up and prays at the same instant. The powers above to him would be the
powers below to me. The verse implies that God could not see the tower
until he came down.
Verses 6 and 7. Who did God speak to? 'Let us go down;' who are 'us?'
Did the Almighty actually fear lest his creatures should build a tower
so high that they might scramble into heaven without his assistance? The
whole of this account is absurd in the extreme. Dr. John Pye Smith says
that 'the confusion of language was probably only to a certain point,
not destroying cognation.' I do not the better understand the story
with the aid of this comment. The only thing proved by the elaborate
commentaries of many divines is, that they gave God the credit of
inspiring an inexplicable revelation, and that, instead of endeavouring
to make it explicable, they burden the margin of the book with
suppositions which only increase the difficulties of the text. {30}
Verse 26. 'And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram.'
Verse 32. 'And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years, and
Terah died in Haran.'
*Chapter xii., v. 1. And the Lord said to Abram, 'Get thee out,' etc. So
that Abram must have been one hundred and thirty-five years old when
he left Haran; but, according to verse 4 it appears that Abram was only
seventy-five years of age. This has been regarded as an inexplicable
difficulty by St. Jerome and St. Augustine; and I, who am not a saint,
must confess with Voltaire that I cannot understand how a man can be
seventy-five and one hundred and thirty-five years of age at the same
time.
*Chapter xii., v. 1, 2, 3, and 7; chap, xiii., v. 14, 15, 16, and 17;
chap, xv., v. 5, 6, 7, and 18; chap, xvii., v. 7 and 8; chap, xviii., v.
18; chap, xxii., v. 17 and 18; chap, xxvi., v. 3 and 4.; chap, xxviii.,
v. 14.
These verses contain the solemn promise, the more solemn covenant, and
the most solemn oath of God; this promise, covenant, and oath all being
to one effect--namely, that Abraham's children should be as numerous as
the dust of the earth, or the stars of heaven, and that this numerous
progeny should possess certain specified land for ever. There is a
difficulty in comprehending why God, who is no respector of persons,
should have selected Abraham and his descendants for such great reward;
but waiving this, we find several questions requiring answer. Who are
Abraham's descendants? Not the Jews; their number is very limited. Where
are Abraham's descendants? Not in the promised land, most certainly.
If Abraham's descendants are the Jews, then I say that they have never
been as numerous as God promised, covenanted, and swore they should be.
I say that they have not held the promised land for ever. It may be
that this promise is yet to be fulfilled; it is quite certain that it is
unfulfilled up to the present time.
*Chapter xii., v. 11 to 20. The account of the chosen of God having
recourse to a lie to pass off his wife for his sister, deserves notice.
When this happens twice (chap. 20), it excites suspicion; and when
it occurs a third time in the same country to the son of Abraham, it
creates doubt as to the truth of the whole. Voltaire writes thus of
Abraham:--
'The Scripture says that the God of the Jews, who intended to give them
the land of Canaan, commanded Abraham to leave the fertile country of
Chaldea, and go towards Palestine, promising that in his seed all
the nations of the earth should be blessed. It is for theologians to
explain, by allegory and _mystical sense_, how all the nations of the
earth were to be blessed in a seed from which they did not descend,
since this much-to-be-venerated _mystical sense_ cannot be made the
object of a work purely critical. A short time after these promises,
Abraham's family was afflicted by famine, and went into Egypt for corn.
It is singular that the Hebrews never went into Egypt but when pressed
by hunger; for Jacob afterwards sent his children on the same errand.
'Abraham, who was then very old, went this way with his wife {31} Sarah,
aged sixty-five; she was very handsome, and Abraham feared that the
Egyptians, smitten by her charms, would kill him in order to enjoy her
transcendent beauties; he proposed to her that she should pass for his
sister, etc. Human nature must at that time have possessed a vigour
which time and luxury have since very much weakened. That which Abraham
had foreseen came to pass; the Egyptian youth found his wife charming,
notwithstanding her sixty-five years; the king himself fell in love with
her, and placed her in his seraglio, though, probably, he had younger
females there; but the Lord plagued the king and his seraglio with very
great sores. The text does not tell us how the king came to know that
this dangerous beauty was Abraham's wife; but it seems that he did come
to know it, and restored her.
'Sarah's beauty must have been unalterable; for, twenty-five years
afterwards, when she was ninety years old, pregnant, and travelling
with her husband through the dominions of a King of Phoenicia, named
Abimelech, Abraham, who had not yet corrected himself, made her a second
time pass for his sister. The Phoenician King was as sensible to her
attractions as the King of Egypt had been; but God appeared to this
Abimelech in a dream, and threatened him with death if he touched
his new mistress. It must be confessed that Sarah's conduct was as
extraordinary as the lasting nature of her charms.
'The singularity of these adventures was probably the reason why the
Jews had not the same sort of faith in their histories which they had
in their Leviticus. There was not a single iota of their _law_ in which
they did not believe; but the historical part of their Scriptures did
not command the same respect. Their conduct in regard to their ancient
books may be compared to that of the English, who received the laws
of St. Edward without absolutely believing that St. Edward cured the
scrofula; or that of the Romans, who, while they obeyed their primitive
laws, were not obliged to believe in the miracles of the sieve filled
with water, the ship drawn to the shore by a vestal's girdle, the stone
cut with a razor, and so forth.'
*Chapter xiii., v. 7 and 18, as before observed, could not have been
written by Moses, (see p. 5.)
*Chapter xiv., v. 1 to 16. This victory of Abraham over four mighty
kings is, if true, a very wonderful one. It is quite clear that
Chedorlaomer was a very powerful monarch, having other monarchs for
his vassals. Amraphel was the king of the mighty empire of Babylon,
doubtless not so grand as it afterwards became, but still one of the
most powerful of the then monarchies of the world. These are assisted
by two other kings; one of whom is described as the king of nations. The
four allies make war upon certain kings, five in number; and, according
to verse 10, they fight, and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fall in the
vale of Siddim.
Abraham, hearing that Lot, his relative, was taken prisoner, took three
hundred and eighteen men, and, by night, pursued and smote the four
allied kings, and recaptured his brother. As he went near {32} to
Damascus in pursuit, he must have travelled more than one hundred miles,
beside crossing some very mountainous country; this, of course, enhances
the character of the victory. One of the fruits of this triumph seems to
have been, that the King of Sodom, who is killed in verse 10, comes to
meet Abraham, alive and well, in verse 17. Verse 18. 'Melchizedek;' who
was he? Before answering this question, read Psalm ex., v. 4, Hebrews,
chap, v., v. 6, 10, and 11, chap, vii., and chap, viii., v. 1. In the
verse we are examining, he is described as [------] (melekitzedek)--
[------] (melek) [------] (shelem).
What does this mean? Melekitzedek or Melchizedek; 'first by
interpretation King of Righteousness, and after that the King of Salem,
which is, the King of Peace; without father, without mother, without
descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life'--_vide_
Hebrews, chap, vii., v. 3.
This description does not answer to any man who ever lived on the
face of the earth; nearly everybody claims to have had a father and
a grandfather; everybody has had a mother. Everybody was one hour old
before he grew older; and after existing some few score years, more or
less, every man has, sooner or later, died. So Melchizedek could not
have been a man. In Malachi, chap iv., v. 2, we find [------] (Chemesh
zedek); this is translated _Sun_ of Righteousness, and it is only to the
sun that the description of Melchizedek will apply. The ancients looked
upon the sun as the everlasting source of all existence, and personified
it in various names; Melchizedek, king of the zodiac, appears to be one
of the Bible personifications. But supposing Melchizedek to be not a
real person, what becomes of the story of Abraham giving him tithes of
his spoils? If this story be not fact, how much is allegory?
Is any portion of the history of Abraham a fact? In chap, xvi., we find
part of the history of Hagar and Sarai; while, in Galatians, chap, iv.,
v. 24 and 25, we are told that whole history is an allegory, and that
Hagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia, and Sarai the City of Jerusalem,
which is 'above.'
If it be taken as a relation of fact, we find Sarah, the chosen of
God, ill-treating a woman of her household, causing her to fly into the
desert when in a state of health requiring great care; and we further
find that God prophecies for the yet unborn child, 'That his hand will
be against every man, and every man's hand against him.' If all things
are in the order and disposition of God, he did not order and dispose
them very well for poor Ishmael. But perhaps the God of the Jews, like
the slaveowner, had not the same consideration for those born in bondage
as for their masters.
*Chapter xv., v. 13. If this four hundred years refers to the Egyptian
captivity, it is four hundred and thirty years according to Exodus,
chap, xii., v. 40 and 41 (also see Galatians, chap, iii., v. 17); but,
according to the Bible chronology, it is only about two hundred years.
It is impossible to give credit to one more than the other; for Genesis,
Exodus, and Chronology, while they contradict one another, are not
supported by any other evidence themselves. {33} Verse 18 to end. Ten
nations are specified here; in Joshua, chap, iii., v. 10, seven only are
mentioned; in Deuteronomy, chap. xxii v. 17, six; in Exodus, chap, iii.,
v. 17, and chap, xxiii., v. 23, six; 2 Chronicles, chap, viii., v. 7,
five only. The land from the Nile to the Euphrates has never yet been in
the undisturbed possession of the Jews; large portions have never been
in their possession for a single moment, so that this promise has never
been performed.
*Chapter xvi., v. 13. In the Douay this is translated, 'And she called
the name of the Lord that spoke unto her, thou the God who hast seen me;
for she said, verily here have I seen the hinder parts of him that seeth
me.' The reader will perceive a strange difference in the two texts. If
the Douay be the correct translation, where are the hinder parts of a
God who is without parts? (_vide_ thirty-nine articles).
*Chapter xvii., v. 1. 'And the Lord appeared to Abraham.' Verse 3. 'And
Abraham fell on his face.' Verse 17. 'Then Abraham fell on his face.'
Verse 23. 'And he left off talking with him; and God went up from
Abraham.'
The intent of this chapter is to induce a belief that the Lord appeared
in person to Abraham; and that, after he had talked with him for some
time, he left and went _up_. It is also intended to convey that
Abraham showed his respect to the Lord bv falling down before him; and,
according to the Douay, 'flat on his face.' I have before remarked on
this going up and coming down, which is utterly inconsistent with any
idea of an infinite and omnipotent God. I do not wish to fill my pages
with mere repetitions, and shall, therefore, at once deal with Genesis,
chap, xvii., v. 1 and 22, chap, xviii., v. 1, 2, 7, and 8, chap, xxii.,
v. 11 and 15, chap, xxvi., v. 2 and 24, chap. xxviii., v. 13, chap,
xxxii., v. 30, and chap, xxxv., v. 7, 9, and 13. It is quite clear
that the author of these verses in Genesis considered not only God was
material, and could be seen, but also considered God in the light of a
superior or more powerful being than man, yet of somewhat the same form
and passions. Man is represented as made in the image of God. Men, Gods,
and Angels are strangely confused together; angels are spoken of in
three characters--viz., as intermediatory messengers, as inferior Gods,
and as God. This would be sufficient of itself to cause great confusion.
God is spoken of in this book as eating, talking, walking, going up and
down, grieving, repenting, and swearing, making impossible covenants and
never keeping them, fearing lest man should eat of the tree of life and
live for ever, or that he should build a tower which should reach
to heaven. In the eighteenth chapter, the terms 'Angels,' 'Men,' and
'Lord,' are indiscriminately used in reference to the same persons.
In the twenty-second chapter, the angel of the Lord calls from heaven to
Abraham. What are angels? Voltaire says--
'Angel, in Greek, _envoy_. The reader will hardly be the wiser for being
told that the Persians had their _peris_, the Hebrews their _melakim_,
and the Greeks their _demonoi_.
'But it is, perhaps, better worth knowing that one of the first of {34}
man's ideas has always been, to place intermediate beings between the
Divinity and himself; such were those demons, those genii, invented in
the ages of antiquity. Man always made the Gods after his own image;
princes were seen to communicate their orders by messengers; therefore,
the Divinity had also his couriers. Mercury and Iris were couriers or
messengers. The Jews, the only people under the conduct of the Divinity
himself, did not, at first, give names to the angels whom God vouchsafed
to send them; they borrowed the names given them by the Chaldeans, when
the Jewish nation was captive in Babylon; Michael and Gabriel are named
for the first time by Daniel, a slave among those people. The Jew Tobit,
who lived at Nineveh, knew the angel Raphael, who travelled with his son
to assist him in recovering the money due to him from the Jew Gabael.
'In the laws of the Jews, that is, in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not the
least mention is made of the existence of the angels, much less of the
worship of them; neither did the Sadducees believe in the angels.
'But, in the histories of the Jews, they are much spoken of. The angels
were corporeal; they had wings at their backs, as the Gentiles feigned
that Mercury had at his heels; sometimes they concealed their wings
under their clothing. How could they be without bodies, since they all
ate and drank?
'The ancient Jewish tradition, according to Ben Maimon, admits ten
degrees, ten orders of angels.
'The Christian religion is founded on the fall of the angels. Those who
revolted were precipitated from the spheres which they inhabited into
hell, in the centre of the earth, and became devils. A devil, in the
form of a serpent, tempted Eve, and damned mankind. Jesus came to redeem
mankind, and to triumph over the devil, who tempts us still. Yet this
fundamental tradition is to be found nowhere but in the apochryphal book
of Enoch; and there it is in a form quite different from that of the
received tradition.
'It is not known precisely where the angels dwell--whether in the air,
in the void, or in the planets. It has not been God's pleasure that we
should be informed of their abode.'
*Chapter xvii., v. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. According to the latter
verse, no uncircumcised man will be admitted into heaven; so the
Mahomedans would get in and Christians be excluded. The following will
be found in the Philosophical Dictionary under the head 'Circumcision.'
'"It appears," says Herodotus, in his book Euterpe, 'that the
inhabitants of Colchis sprang from Egypt. I judge so from my own
observations, rather than from hearsay; for I found that, at Colchis,
the ancient Egyptians were more frequently recalled to my mind than the
ancient customs of Colchis were, when I was in Egypt.
'"These inhabitants of the shores of the Euxine sea stated themselves
to be a colony founded by Sesostris. As for myself, I should think this
probable, not merely because they are dark and wooly-haired, but because
the inhabitants of Colchis, Egypt, and Ethiopia, {35} are the
only people in the world who, from time immemorial, have practised
circumcision; for the Phoenicians and the people of Palestine confess
that they adopted the practice from the Egyptians. The Syrians, who
at present inhabit the banks of Thermodon, acknowledge that it is,
comparatively, but recently that they have conformed to it. It is
principally from this usage that they are considered of Egyptian origin.
'"With respect to Ethiopia and Egypt, as this ceremony is of great
antiquity in both nations, I cannot by any means ascertain which has
derived it from the other. It is, however, probable that the Ethiopians
received it from the Egyptians; while, on the contrary, the Phoenicians
have abolished the practice of circumcising new-born children since the
enlargement of their commerce with the Greeks."
'From this passage of Herodotus, it is evident that many people had
adopted circumcision; but no nation ever pretended to have received
it from the Jews. To whom, then, can we attribute the origin of this
custom; to a nation from whom five or six others acknowledge they took
it, or to another nation, much less powerful, less commercial, less
warlike, hid away in a corner of Arabia Petraea, and which never
communicated any one of its usages to any other people?
'The Jews admit that they were, many ages since, received in Egypt out
of charity. Is it not probable that the lesser people imitated a usage
of the superior one, and that the Jews adopted some customs from their
masters?
'Clement of Alexandria relates that Pythagoras, when travelling among
the Egyptians, was obliged to be circumcised, in order to be admitted
to their mysteries. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to be
circumcised to be a priest in Egypt. Those priests existed when Joseph
arrived in Egypt. The government was of great antiquity, and the
ancient ceremonies of the country were observed with the most scrupulous
exactness. (Joseph was married into the family of the Priest of the Sun
before his relations had established any religious system.)
'The Jews acknowledge that they remained in Egypt two hundred and five
years (the Bible says four hundred and thirty). They say that, during
that period, they did not become circumcised. It is clear, then,
that for two hundred and five years, the Egyptians did not receive
circumcision from the Jews. Would they have adopted it from them after
the Jews had stolen the vessels which they had lent them, and, according
to their own account, fled with their plunder into the wilderness? Will
a master adopt the principal symbol of the religion of a robbing and
runaway slave? It is not in human nature.
'It is stated in the book of Joshua that the Jews were circumcised
in the wilderness. "I have delivered you from what constituted your
reproach among the Egyptians." But what could this reproach be, to
a people living between Phoenicians, Arabians, and Egyptians, but
something which rendered them contemptible to these three nations?' {36}
*Chapter xviii., v. 1. The Lord appeared, according to verse 2, in the
shape of three men, who wash their feet and sit down under a tree, and
eat cakes, butter, milk, and veal, until the tenth verse, when they
become only one, and it is 'he said.' This _he_ would, according to
verse 13, appear to be the Lord; but, in verse 16, we go back to 'the
men' again, who walk with Abraham. During the walk, the Lord speaks
(verse 17), and, in verse 22, the Lord is mentioned separately from 'the
men.' Verses 20 and 21. This is scarcely the language to be expected
from an omniscient God. It is here stated that a report of the sin of
Sodom and Gomorrah has reached God; that God is uncertain and ignorant
as to the correctness of the report, and that he is determined to go
down to the city to ascertain the truth for himself. This is just what
an ignorant and superstitious man might fancy, but not that which we
should expect a God would reveal. The argumentative conversation between
God and Abraham, and the strange comment, that, after the conversation
was finished, 'the Lord went his way,' are worthy of notice. The Douay
Bible explains this chapter in a foot-note, as follows:--'The Lord here
accommodates his discourse to the way of speaking and acting amongst
men, for he knoweth all things, and needeth not to go anywhere for
information. Note here that _two_ of the three angels went away
immediately for Sodom, while the third, who represented the Lord,
remained with Abraham.' How is this ascertained? This comment is, like
all the rest, a barefaced attempt to make falsehood appear like truth;
but failing in the attempt, because, like upon the contact of fire with
water, a loud hiss is always raised against those who endeavour to mix
falsehood with truth.
*Chapter xix. My original publishers and my present printer, more moral
than the Queen's printers, decline to print or publish any comment upon,
or any quotations from, the obscene part of this chapter. In defence of
the publishers, I may observe that, if this chapter was in any book
but the Bible, and was published by any one not well protected by the
aristocracy, he would be most assuredly prosecuted by the Society for
Suppression of Vice; Regent Street, a few Lords, a Duke or Marauis, a
Bishop, or the Bible, will, however, cover with mystery, and varnish
over with fashion, that, which if stript of its tawdry gewgaws or solemn
black cloak, is nothing but disgusting and degrading immorality.
I shall, therefore, pass with but scant notice, and without the
slightest attempt at examination, all those chapters or verses which may
be classed under the head 'obscene.'
It is said that the Bible would not be an authentic history unless it
contained such chapters as this, and that the relation is given for the
purpose of showing that God condemned and punished such conduct, and as
a warning and example to futurity. Now, I feel that 'evil communications
corrupt good manners,' and, although I regret that God made such an
unfortunate mistake in selecting a family who trained up such bad
children, when he drowned everybody beside, yet I cannot admire and
reverence his conduct in leaving them to fall into disgusting {37}
crime for the purpose of furnishing us with the horrid scene of the
inhabitants of two cities burnt alive.
Lot's wife being changed into a pillar of salt, is a chemical problem
not easy of solution. 'Looking back' seems scarcely sufficient to
account for the transmutation. Jesus told his disciples that they were
the salt of the earth; perhaps they were descended from Lot's wife.
*Chapter xx. This has been before adverted to in the general remarks on
Abraham. Newman, in his 'Phases of Faith,' asks, 'What was I to make of
God's anger with Abimelech, whose sole offence was the having believed
Abraham's lie? for which a miraculous barrenness was sent on all the
females of Abimelech's tribe, and was bought off only by splendid
presents to the favoured deceiver.'
According to verse 6, Abimelech was not free and responsible; this
makes the punishment still more remarkable; and why punish others for
Abimelech's offence (if offence was really committed)? If God withheld
Abimelech from committing sin, why is he not as merciful to every one?
it would be more Godlike to prevent sin than to punish the sinner.
*Chapter xxi., v. 12 and 14. The sending Hagar and Ishmael into the
desert with only one bottle of water is cruel and barbarous conduct.
Abraham does not seem to have had much parental affection; his
first-born son he turned out into the desert with a small amount of food
and water, and he prepared to cut the throat of his second son without
the slightest hesitation.
God informed Abraham that in Isaac should the great promise be
fulfilled; and on this Ishmael was sent away. Voltaire says--
'It was in Isaac that the race of the Patriarch was to be blessed; yet
Isaac was father only of an unfortunate and contemptible nation, who
were for a long period slaves, and have, for a still longer, been
dispersed. Ishmael, on the contrary, was the father of the Arabs; who,
in course of time, established the empire of the Caliphs, one of the
most powerful and most extensive in the world.'
Verses 30 and 31. In chap, xxvi., v. 25, 32, and 33, we are told that it
was not Abraham, but the servants of Isaac who digged the well; and
that it was not Abraham, but Isaac who called the name of the place
Beersheba. Which is correct, or were there two Beer-shebas? The
thirty-third verse reads, 'Therefore the name of the city is Beersheba
unto this day.' The Rev. Dr. Giles adds, 'It is sufficient to remark
that no city of Beersheba existed in the time of Moses; consequently,
the Book in which it is found could not have been written by Moses or
any of his contemporaries.'
*Chapter xxii., v. 1. 'God did tempt Abraham.' It is quite clear that
James, 'a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,' did not believe
this verse; for, in his epistle to the twelve tribes, chap, i., v. 13,
he says, that God never tempteth any man.
Verse 2. In the Douay, Abraham is told to go 'into the land of vision,'
in our version, 'into the land of Moriah.' The Bible is so much made
up of dreams and visions, that we cannot wonder the preachers should
chiefly discourse upon castles in the air and crowns {38} in heaven, not
to be looked at in the present life, but to be enjoyed without stint in
the next. It is one drawback that we are all to die first, because men
may well doubt whether their decaying and decayed remains will rise
again with capacity to enjoy the good things. This influences all; per
example, assuming a bishop to be a sincere believer, we all know that
he is reluctant to retire without his five shillings in this world, even
while upheld by his faith in the crown he is to receive in the world to
come. Any doubter can satisfy his conscience by reference to the late
debates on the retiring bishop's bill.
Verse 4. Abraham does not speak the truth when he tells the young men
that he and the young lad will return after worshipping, because at that
time he intends to kill Isaac. I do not wish to imply by this criticism
that I expect to find Abraham speaking the truth, because such an
implication would not be justified. Abraham might have respected truth,
perhaps did, but he kept a long way from it very often (_vide_ his
before-mentioned adventures with Pharaoh and Abimelech). Abraham even
deceived his own son; see verses 7 and 8. On this Voltaire remarks--
'It seems astonishing that God, after causing Isaac to be born of a
centenary father and a woman of ninety-five, should afterwards have
ordered that father to murder the son whom he had given him, contrary
to every expectation. This strange order from God seems to show that, at
the time when this history was written, the sacrifice of human victims
was customary amongst the Jews, as it afterwards became in other
nations, as witness the vow of Jephtha.'
Newman adds, 'Paul and James agree in extolling Abraham as the pattern
of faith; James and the author of the epistle to the Hebrews specify the
sacrifice of Isaac as a first-rate fruit of faith; yet, if the voice of
morality is allowed to be heard, Abraham was (in heart and intention)
not less guilty than those who sacrificed their children to Molech.' See
also 'Phases of Faith,' p. 91.
Verse 14. 'And Abraham called the name of the place Jehovah jireh;' in
Exodus, chap, vi., v. 3, God says positively that he was not known to
Abraham by the name Jehovah; which is true? If Abraham called the name
of the place Jehoveh jireh, he must have known the Lord by that name;
either the account as to Abraham is untrue, or God had forgotten or made
a mistake in Exodus. Which ever supposition is adopted, the Bible ceases
to have any claim on us as a revelation from a truthful deity.
Verse 16. 'By myself have I sworn.' Can my readers imagine any form of
oath an omnipotent, eternal, and infinite God would be like to use? Is
God's oath to be considered more binding than his word? In our day, if
a man swear to an untruth, We call it perjury; but, although God did not
keep his oath, we must remember that his ways are not as our ways.
*Chapter xxiii., verses 2 and 19, and verses 15 and 16 have been before
noticed on page 5.
*Chapter xxiv., v. 1. Abraham, in his old age, was more vigorous {39}
than in his youth and prime of life; for, by chap, xxv., v. 1 to 3, we
learn that after this he took another one, and had six sons, and, by
chap, xxv., v. 6, it would appear that he had other wives and children.
Verse 3. The conduct of Abraham and of God, as previously detailed, as
to oath-taking, is disapproved in Matthew, chap, v., v. 34 to 37, and
James, chap, v., v. 12.
*Chapter xxv., v. 5 and 6. If Abraham gave 'all that he had' unto Isaac,
what kind of gifts did his other children get?
Verse 8. One would scarcely fancy when reading the life of Abraham and
this conclusion, that he had died younger than any of his predecessors
on record. The Douay has it, 'and decaying, he died in a good old age,
and having lived a long time.' Why, instead of dying in a good old age,
he had lived a much shorter period than any of his ancestors, and the
verse, to be in accordance with the previous chapters, ought to have
lamented his premature death.
Verse 23. God seems to have a preference for younger sons; the dutiful
Ishmael (who, though turned out into the desert to starve, forgot his
wrongs, and attended to place his father's body in the grave) was set
aside for his younger brother Isaac. The truthful, manly, and forgiving
elder born Esau is supplanted by the crafty, cowardly, and untruthful
Jacob.
*Chapter xxvi., v. 7 to 11. Of this adventure happening a third time in
the history of father and son, and a second time in the same country,
Professor Newman says, 'Allowing that such a thing was barely not
impossible, the improbability was so intense as to demand the strictest
and most cogent proof; yet, when we asked who testified it, no proof
appeared that it was Moses; or, supposing it to be he, what his sources
of knowledge were'--and, on chap, xxvii.,' Was it at all credible that
the lying and fraudulent Jacob should be so specially loved by God?'
Verse 34. These wives are differently named and described in chap,
xxxvi., v. 2 and 3.
*Chapter xxviii., v. 11. Even in a dream, the idea of a ladder reaching
from earth to heaven to enable God and his angels to go up and down
is rather ludicrous. The Douay says that Jacob 'saw the ladder in his
sleep.' A dream, in Genesis, is intended to have a stronger significance
than we should attach to it; we are told that God often appeared to
various persons in dreams. The writer of Genesis evidently conceived a
ladder necessary to enable God to get up to heaven, in the same style in
which you or I might ascend to the roof of a house.
Verse 20. The inference from this conditional statement is, that if God
does not keep, clothe, and feed Jacob, then he shall not be Jacob's God.
Jacob was rather a shrewd fellow; he did not want to be religious for
nothing.
Verse 22. How can a stone be God's house, and what benefit would tithes
be to God?
*Chapter xxix., v. 5. Laban was the son of Bethuel, not the son of {40}
Nahor; see chap, xxv., v. 20. Verse 17. The Douay says that Leah was
blear-eyed. Verse 25. The cunning Jacob was outwitted by Laban, his
uncle.
The bickerings between Jacob and his wives, and the curious mode of
cheating Laban (chap, xxx., v. 32 to 42), need no comment other than
that of surprise that a special providence should interfere to make
women fruitful or barren, or to make sheep of divers colours, white,
black, brown, speckled, spotted, grisled, and ringstraked--extraordinary
sheep those. In the Douay and Breeches Bibles, the word 'sheep' stands
instead of 'cattle' in our version. Perhaps the authorised translators
had never seen sheep so peculiar as those first described:
*Chapter xxxi., v. 53. Who is the God of Nahor?
*Chapter xxxii., v. 1. Who are the 'Angels of God?'
Verses 24 to 30. If any meaning is intended to be conveyed by; these
verses, it is that the omnipotent and infinite God and his creature
Jacob wrestled all night, and that in the morning God, finding that
Jacob was as strong and clever at wrestling as himself, unfairly puts
Jacob's thigh out of joint; notwithstanding which, Jacob refused to let
let go his hold of God Almighty until he had given him his blessing. I
will not comment on this, because, to Freethinkers, the matter is too
absurd, and, to Believers, too outrageous for remark.
On verse 32, the Rev. Dr. Giles remarks, 'This reference to a custom
still existing among the Israelites, seems decidedly to indicate a later
date than that of Moses. No one has ventured to assert that the Mosaic
Law was observed by the Jews before it was instituted by Moses. Now, the
words of the passage before us seem to show that the Israelites had, for
a long time, abstained from eating the sinew which shrank. Moses, being
conscious that this custom was ordained by himself, could hardly have
used such language, or have claimed such great antiquity as the words
seem to indicate.'
Verse 3 to 22, and chap, xxxiii., v. 1 to 15. Read this account
attentively, and then ask yourselves which of the brothers was the more
worthy of the promise--Esau, cozened out of his birthright, swindled out
of his father's blessing, yet forgetting and forgiving when he had the
power to crush and punish; or Jacob, the cheater, the liar, and the
coward.
*Chapter xxxiii., v. 19: In the Douay, instead of 'a hundred pieces of
money,' we are told that Jacob gave the children of Hamor 'a hundred
lambs.'
Verse 20 is thus translated; 'And raising an altar there, he invoked
upon it the most mighty God of Israel.'
Whether Douay or Protestant translation be correct, it is quite certain
that Jacob was a little too fast--there was no [--------] (al alei
ishral)--Jacob was not called Israel until chap, xxxv., v. 10--so
that the 'El-elohe-Israel' of our version, and the 'most mighty God of
Israel' of the Douay, are both out of place unless Jacob used the words
in the spirit of prophecy, which will explain many difficult passages.
*Chapter xxxiv. Upon this chapter Voltaire indulges in criticism more
pungent than before:--
'Here our critics exclaim in terms of stronger disgust than ever. What!
say they, the son of a king is desirous to marry a vagabond girl; the
marriage is approved; Jacob, the father, and Dinah, the daughter,
are loaded with presents; the King of Sichem deigns to receive those
wandering robbers, called patriarchs, within his city; he has the
incredible politeness or kindness to undergo, with his son, his court,
and his people, the rite of circumcision, thus condescending to the
superstition of a petty horde that could not call half a league of
territory their own! And, in return for this astonishing hospitality and
goodness, how do our holy patriarchs act? They wait for the day when the
process of circumcision generally induces fever; when Simeon and Levi
run through the whole city with poignards in their hands and massacre
the king, the prince his son, and all the inhabitants. We are precluded
from the horror appropriate to this infernal counterpart of the tragedy
of St. Bartholomew, only by a sense of its absolute impossibility. It is
an abominable romance; but it is evidently a ridiculous romance. It
is impossible that two men could have slaughtered in quiet the whole
population of a city. The people might suffer, in a slight degree, from
the operation which had preceded; but, notwithstanding this, they would
have risen in self-defence against two diabolical miscreants; they would
have instantly assembled, would have surrounded them, and destroyed them
with the summary and complete vengeance merited by their atrocity.
'But there is a still more palpable impossibility. It is that, according
to the accurate computation of time, Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, could
be only four or five years old; and that, even by forcing up chronology
as far as possible in favour of the narrative, she could, at the very
most, be only eight. It is here, then, that we are assailed with bursts
of indignant exclamation. What! it is said, what! is it this book--the
book of a rejected and reprobate people--a book so long unknown to all
the world--a book in which sound reason and decent manners are outraged
in every page--that is held up to us as irrefragable, holy, and dictated
by God himself? Is it not even impious to believe it? or could anything
less than the fury of cannibals urge to the persecution of sensible and
modest men for not believing it?'
*Chapter xxxv., v. 11. Although kings were to come out of Jacob's loins
by promise, Esau's issue have been quite as successful, in fact rather
more so, without any of God's assistance.
Verse 22, and chap, xlix., v. 3 and 4. The family to whom God promised
'the land,' seem to have been as immoral and vicious as any on record.
Abraham has been noticed; the conduct of Lot, his family, and neighbours
I dare not comment on; Isaac was pretty free from blame, except in the
matter of Rebekah; but his goodness is overborne by the rascality of his
son Jacob and his wife, Rachel, who (worthy partner of such a husband)
robs her own father--the cutthroat propensities of Simeon and Levi--and
the licentiousness of Reuben. {42} *Chapter xxxv., end of verse 22
to verse 26. Dr. Giles speaks of the inaccuracy of the last verse, as
follows:--
'"These are the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padan-Aram."
'But it is well known that Benjamin was born some years after Jacob
returned to Canaan. The text, therefore, is incorrect, and creates a
serious difficulty, if we suppose that Moses, writing in the presence of
God, could have been liable to such an error.'
*Chapter xxxvi., v. 2 and 3, are contradicted in chap, xxvi., v. 34.
Verses 14, 16, and 18. It is difficult to discover from this whether
Korah was the son or grandson of Esau, as he is described in both
characters.
Verse 31 has been referred to on page 6. In Dr. Giles's 'Hebrew
Records,' page 140, the critical reader will find the matter discussed
more fully than my pages allow.
*Chapter xxxvii., v. 1. In the Douay, instead of 'wherein his father was
a stranger,' it reads,' wherein his father sojourned;' and, in verse
2, instead of 'seventeen,' it reads 'sixteen,' and states that Joseph
'accused his brethren to his father of a most wicked crime.'
Verses 25, 27, and 28. These verses are criticised in the 'Hebrew
Records' as follows:--
'Here the merchants, to whom Joseph is sold, are twice called
Ishmaelites, and once Midianites. Bishop Patrick explains the
inconsistency in the following extraordinary manner:--
'"_Ishmaelites_. They are called below Midianites. These people were
near neighbours to each other, and were joined together in one company,
or caravan, as it is now called. It is the custom, even to the present
day, in the East, for merchants and others to travel through the deserts
in large companies, for fear of robbers or wild beasts."
'If the passage to which these comments are annexed, occurred in one
of the famous Greek or Latin historians--Livy, Thucydides, or any
other--such a note would not, for one instant, be taken as sound
criticism, because none of those able writers would be guilty of such
an absurdity as applying two names, known to be distinct, to the same
people, within the space of four lines. If some idle and weakly written
tale contained the inconsistency, the mode of interpreting it, which
Bishop Patrick applies to the passage before us, might be passed over,
but, even then, more from its being of no importance, than from its
soundness or its propriety. But, when we find this discrepancy in a
work which professes to be inspired, it is highly desirable that such an
inconsistency or discrepancy should be cleared up. Why have none of
the commentators remarked on the singular circumstance of there being
Ishmaelitish merchants at all, in the time when Joseph was sold into
Egypt? Ishmael was Jacob's uncle, being brother to Isaac, Jacob's
father. The family of Ishmael could not have increased to such an extent
in the time of which the history treats. The mention of Ishmaelites,
in the text before us, indicates that the writer lived many generations
later, when Ishmaelitish {43} merchants were well known. Still less
likely is it that there were Midianitish merchants in those days; for
Midian was also one of the sons of Abraham, and fifty-four years younger
than Isaac; see chap, xxv., y. 2. At all events, the variation in the
name of this tribe of merchantmen renders it impossible that Moses could
have written the narrative, unless we suppose that, when he had it in
his power to describe the matter accurately and definitely, he rather
chose to relate it in such a manner as to puzzle all future ages as to
its exact meaning.'
Verse 35. In the Douay, the word 'hell' is substituted for the word
'grave.' The Hebrew is [------] (shale). Jacob believed his son devoured
by wild beasts, and, therefore, could have hardly expected to find him
in his grave; and, although hell might, perhaps, be the appropriate
receptacle for one who had been so great a rascal as Jacob, yet, I much
doubt whether he ever expressed his intention to go there to find his
son. I must refer my more precise readers to the various controversial
works written by various shades of Catholic and Protestant divines, on
the words 'purgatory,' 'limbo,' 'hell,' and 'grave.'
Verse 36. The word [------] translated 'officer,' means eunuch, and is
so translated in the Douay; if this be correct, we can scarcely wonder
at the conduct of Potiphar's wife, as detailed in chap, xxxix.
*Chapter xxxviii Judah and his children are a still further illustration
of the happy and moral family in whom all the nations of the world were
to be blessed. The following is quoted from Voltaire:--
'The Rev. Father Dom Calmet makes this reflection, in alluding to the
thirty-eighth chapter of Genesis:--"Scripture," he observes, "gives us
the details of a history, which, on the first perusal, strikes our minds
as not of a nature for edification; but the hidden sense which is shut
up in it is as elevated, as that of the mere letter appears low to
carnal eyes. It is not without good reasons that the Holy Spirit has
allowed the histories of Tamar, of Rahab, of Ruth, and of Bathsheba, to
form a part of the genealogy of Jesus Christ."
'It might have been well, if Dom Calmet had explained these sound
reasons, by which we might have cleared up the doubts, and appeased
the scruples, of all the honest and timorous souls who are anxious to
comprehend how this Supreme Being, the Creator of the world, could be
born in a Jewish village, of a race of plunderers and of prostitutes.
This mystery, which is not less inconceivable than other mysteries, was
assuredly worthy the explanation of so able a commentator.'
*Chapter xxxix. is inserted, I presume, by way of contrast, to heighten
the effect produced by the previous chapter.
*Chapter xl., v. 5, 8, 9, 12, and 16--chap, xli., v. 15 and 25. In
Leviticus, chap, xix., v. 26, we find these words according to the
Douay, 'You shall not divine nor observe dreams.'
*Chapter xli., v. 38 and 39. One would imagine, by these verses, that
Joseph and the Egyptians worshipped the same God, but this is not
the fact; Pharaoh speaks to Moses of the Lord _your_ God, and if the
Egyptians had spoken in their usual manner, it would have been {44} not
to have praised Joseph for the Spirit of God being in him, but rather to
have upbraided the infidel prisoner with having obtained his knowledge
from the devil, unless, indeed, we are to assume that the religious
Egyptians were more humane than the religious Christians. If Joseph
had lived a few years later, he would have stood a fair chance of being
stoned to death, for his divinations and fortune-telling (_vide_ Exodus,
chap, xxii., v. 18, and Deuteronomy, chap, xviii., v. 10, 11, and 12).
Verses 45 and 50. Potipherah is here called priest of On; in the Douay,
he is denominated priest of Heliopolis. In plain truth, he was priest
of the sun; and it might be instructive if it were possible to ascertain
the reasons which induced the translators to hide Joseph's close
connexion with sun worship.
Verse 56. This famine was over the whole earth, so that the favoured
family of Abraham were worse off than the Egyptians, to whom God gave
seven years' notice, to enable them to prepare against the coming
trouble. We have all heard of people living on hope; and the children of
Isaac might have hoped for the fulfilment of the promise, but such would
be very unsubstantial food during a seven years' famine.
*Chapter xliii., v. 32. How could it be considered an abomination
for the Egyptians to eat with the Hebrews? the latter were only the
descendants of Abraham, few in number, and the Egyptians could not have
known of their existence until they made acquaintance with Joseph;
and, by giving him the daughter of the high priest to wife, they had
conferred great honour and favour on him--he was the first in the land,
and the only Hebrew amongst them.
*Chapter xliv., v. 5 and 15. Joseph, according to this, used to divine
in a cup. My grandmother used to inspect the dregs of her tea cup, and
prophesy wondrously; but it is really too much to expect us to find a
creed in such a cup.
*Chapter xlvi., v. 1 to 3. God again appeared in a vision at night, that
is, Jacob dreamed that he saw God.
The Rev. Dr. Giles observes on verses 8 to 26:--
'An error is found also in the other catalogue of Jacob's children,
who accompanied him into Egypt. The names occupy from verse 8 to 25 of
Genesis, chap. xlvi. In verse 26 it is said:--
'"All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his
loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were three score and
six."
'This total is erroneous, for the names, added properly, amount to
sixty-seven; and a still greater difference is found between the Hebrew
text and the Septuagint, in the twenty-seventh verse; the former makes
"all the souls of the house of Jacob," to be "three score and ten,"
whereas the latter states them to have been seventy-five.
'We might set aside the authority of the Septuagint as inferior to
that of the Hebrew in such a matter, were it not, that in St. Stephen's
speech, in the Acts of the Apostles, chap, vii., v. 14, the number 75
is repeated; and an awkward dilemma is created, from which it is {45}
impossible to extricate ourselves, if these conflicting accounts, both
written by inspiration, are to be considered as having come down to us
in their original state. This may, with justice, be called in question;
for Dean Shuckford, who supposes that the transcribers have added
something in chap, xxxv., accuses them of having omitted something in
chap, xlvi., of having added a verse in xlvi., 27, of the Septuagint,
which is more full than the Hebrew, and, lastly, of having altered
seventy into seventy-five, in chap. vii. of the Acts. It is difficult
to imagine how a book, with which such liberties have been taken, can
properly be regarded as an immaculate record. But the same mode of
interpretation is entirely inapplicable to explain the remarkable fact,
that, among those who accompanied Jacob into Egypt, are enumerated, in
chap, xlvi., v. 21, ten sons of Benjamin, and, in v. 12, two grandsons
of Judah, Hezron and Hamul. Jacob surely went into Egypt soon after
the famine began; and Benjamin was then a lad, if we may trust the
chronologers, under twenty years of age. The grandsons of Judah, through
his son Pharez, could not have been born until many years later; for
Pharez, their father, was only two or three years old when the whole
family first entered the land of their servitude.
'In verse 34 it is said, as a reason for the Israelites being placed
in the land of Goshen, that "every shepherd is an abomination to the
Egyptians." But it appears, from every other part of the history of
Joseph and Pharaoh, that there was no such enmity between them. This
is also the opinion of Dr. Shuckford, whose account of the matter is as
follows:--
'"There is, indeed, one passage in Genesis which seems to intimate that
there was that religious hatred, which the Egyptians were afterwards
charged with, paid to creatures even in the days of Joseph; for we are
informed that he put his brethren upon telling Pharaoh their profession,
in order to have them placed in the land of Goshen, for, or because,
'every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians,' Genesis, xlvi.,
v. 34. I must freely acknowledge that I cannot satisfy myself about the
meaning of this passage; I cannot see that shepherds were really, at
this time, an abomination to the Egyptians; for Pharaoh himself had his
shepherds, and, when he ordered Joseph to place his brethren in the land
of Goshen, he was so far from disapproving of their employment, that he
ordered him, if he knew any men of activity amongst them, that he should
make them rulers of his cattle; nay, the Egyptians were, at this time,
shepherds themselves as well as the Israelites, for we are told, when
their money failed, they brought their cattle of all sorts unto Joseph,
to exchange them for corn, and, among the rest, their flocks of the same
kind with those which the Israelites were to tell Pharaoh that it was
their profession to take care of, as will appear to any one that will
consult the Hebrew text in the places referred to. Either, therefore, we
must take the expression that every shepherd was an abomination to
the Egyptians to mean no more than that they thought meanly of the
employment, that it was a lazy, idle, and inactive profession, as
{46} Pharaoh seemed to question whether there were any men of activity
amongst them, when he heard what their trade was; or, if we take the
words to signify a religious aversion to them, which does, indeed, seem
to be the true meaning of the expression, from the use made of it in
other parts of Scripture, then I do not see how it is reconcilable with
Pharaoh's inclination to employ them himself, or with the Egyptians
being many of them, at this time, of the same profession themselves,
which the heathen writers agree with Moses in supposing them to be.
[Diod. Sic., lib. 1],'" Though learned men have observed that there are
several interpolations in the books of the Scriptures, which were not
the words of the Sacred Writers, some persons, affecting to show their
learning, when they read over the ancient MSS., would sometimes put a
short remark in the margin, which they thought might give a reason for,
or clear the meaning of, some expression in the text against which they
placed it, or to which, they adjoined it; and from hence it happened,
now and then, that the transcribers from manuscripts so remarked upon,
did, through mistake, take a marginal note or remark into the text,
imagining it to be a part of it. Whether Moses might not end his period
in this place with the words, _that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen_;
and whether what follows, _for every shepherd is an abomination to the
Egyptians_, may not have been added to the text in this way, is entirely
submitted to the judgment of the learned. Connexion Book 5, vol. i., p.
341."
'The learned writer of this extract is more correct in his statement of
the difficulty, than in its solution. It is a principle in criticism
to consider a book as free from interpolation, until it is proved that
interpolations have certainly been made. The charge of interpolation is
brought against the books of the Old Testament for no other reason, than
to reduce them into harmony with the preconceived opinion that they
were written by the authors to whom they are commonly ascribed. In the
present instance, there has been no interpolation.
The compiler, relating the honours paid to the family of Jacob in Egypt,
and endeavouring to harmonise them with the state of things in his
own times, 1,000 years later, when the Egyptians, by their religious
absurdities, had been made to entertain an enmity towards shepherds, has
given us a description which, in this particular, is inconsistent with
itself. In short, the Egyptians held shepherds in aversion in the fifth,
but not in the fifteenth, century before the Christian era.'
It is scarcely necessary to add to the above; but, if it were, it would
be hard to reconcile there being an abomination with the eleventh verse
of chap, xlvii., in which it is stated that Pharaoh gave these very
people 'the best of the land, in the land of Rameses.'
*Chapter xlviii., v. 22. Jacob's life contains no account of his wars
with the Amorites; in fact, had it not been for these concluding words,
I should have looked upon him as rather likely to gain victories by
cozening and diplomatic swindling, than by his bow and sword.
*Chapter 1., v. 10 and 11. These verses could not have been {47} written
by Moses, because Atad was not _beyond_ but on _this_ side Jordan to
him. Joseph did not cross the Jordan to bury his rather.
Before quitting Genesis, I will endeavour, as briefly as possible, to
sum up the effect of my partial examination (I say partial, because
there are many differences in the readings of the various manuscripts,
and in the translation of the different versions, which I passed
without notice, because they have seemed to me to be of comparative
unimportance). I have shown, in the foregoing pages--first, that in the
authorised version the book claims our attention under false pretences,
that, in fact, it is not, and in the original does not claim to be, the
work of Moses; many passages he could not have written, of the rest,
some passages are evidently taken from different manuscripts, and badly
joined or fitted in, so as to make up the text as we have it, forming,
in many cases, a twice or even thrice told tale, as in the accounts of
the creation, of the flood, the adventures of Abraham's wife, and of
Jacob's wife, etc. Second, that it is impossible the book can be a
revelation from God, because it contains passages in relation to deity
which are in themselves ridiculously absurd, because it speaks of more
Gods than one, treating some as superior and some as inferior Gods,
because it degrades the deity to the level of man, making him grieve
and repent, and become subject to the same passions and feelings as man,
liable to heat and cold, etc, because it treats of the deity as a finite
being, occupying a small portion of space, travelling from one part of
the earth to another, going up to heaven and coming down therefrom
with the aid of a ladder; because it relates that God has, or sometimes
assumes, a finite, substantial shape, which a man may lay hold of and
wrestle with; because it pictures God as favouring, without apparent
reason, some men in preference to others, and, in very many instances,
choosing as the objects of his divine favour the worst possible
characters, rewarding fraud and knavery with lands flowing with milk and
honey, and discouraging and discountenancing virtuous conduct either
by leaving it unnoticed or by depriving the unfortunate virtuous man of
some benefit to which he appeared to be entitled; because it represents
a just and Almighty God allowing the happiness of his own creatures to
be destroyed by one of the animals he had created, and then cursing
the tempted man and woman for being frail enough to fall at the first
temptation, when, in fact, he (God) was the cause of that very frailty;
because it represents the same Deity pledging his oath to a promise
which he either never intended to perform, or which he did not possess
the ability to perform, or which he afterwards wilfully broke.
Third.--That it cannot be relied on as a relation of actual occurrences,
because, in the account of the creation, science has enabled us to
detect several positively false statements in the account of the flood;
also several gross and palpable mis-statements occur; because, in
dealing with dates and genealogical statements, it contradicts and
confuses its own narrative; because, even where it pretends to be the
most real, it is alleged, in another book of the same Bible, to be
purely allegorical. {48} Fourth.---That it ought not to be used as an
educational work for the foregoing reasons, and because of the various
obscene passages spread throughout the book; because, also, the youthful
scholar will find cunning, craft, and cheating rewarded and preferred,
while honesty and noble conduct is unnoticed; because he will find the
practice of sacrifice is encouraged, and sacrifice, either human or
bestial, is degrading and debasing; because he will find cruelties
detailed at which his nature must revolt or become deteriorated.
In Foxton's work on 'Popular Christianity,' a quotation is given from
the _Prospective Review_, in which the writer suggests:--
'That the Jews, like every other nation of antiquity, have framed for
themselves a mythical history, which, with the lapse of time, has been
received for fact. This at once releases us from the necessity of any
elaborate contrivances for reconciling their belief with probability
and the laws of nature; and exhibits a phenomenon so universal and so
natural, that it would have been a miracle if the Jewish literature had
been an exception to it. But the transition from regarding the first
chapters of Genesis as an inspired record, to treating them as only a
picture of the popular notions of the age in which they were produced,
is too violent to be made at once by any large portion of the public.
We are not sorry, therefore, that, from time to time, hypotheses are
proposed which smooth the descent from one of these opinions to the
other, and make the gradients safer. The clerical geologists would have
been suspended by their diocesans, or hooted from their pulpits, if they
had not been able, at first, to profess that their discoveries confirmed
the Mosaic account of the deluge, and did not contravene that of the
creation. Time has familiarised men with the idea that they are not to
look into Scripture for geology; and we hope that its professors will
soon come openly to avow this, and cease to torture the words of Genesis
into a conformity with their science. Public opinion is so tyrannically
intolerant, and its penal power so fearful, that we cannot expect the
whole truth to be told, or even to be seen, at once. But while we admit
the temporary value of such intermediate stages of opinion, we are bound
to declare our judgment that they are merely temporary, and have no
solid basis.'
My only object in collecting together these criticisms on the Bible,
is to free the human family from the many evils which, in my opinion,
attach to, and are consequent on, a belief in the divine origin of the
Book.
The child is taught to believe the Bible is the word of God, at an age
when he can scarcely read its words; he is taught to regard with horror
every attempt to criticise its pages; and the result is, that when his
senses point out a fact, and that fact clashes with his Bible, he is
bewildered and confused, he knows not what to think, and unless he be
of great mental power, he ends by not thinking at all, and becomes
professedly a believer, but in reality a man who dares not reason.