The title, 'Second Book of Moses,' is an interpolation, forming no part
of the text. The remark on page four, as to titles and headings, applies
to the whole of the Bible.
*Chapter 1., vv. 6 and 7. 'Joseph died and his brethren, and all that
generation and the children of Israel were fruitful, * * * and the land
was filled with them.' If these words mean anything, they mean that in
the duration of a little more than one generation, the children of one
man multiplied so as to fill the whole of the land of Egypt, and to
become exceedingly mighty. Devout believers can only wonder that this
numerous and exceedingly mighty people allowed the Egyptians so
to maltreat and oppress them; or that this fruitful and abundantly
increasing people wno filled all the land, had only two midwives to
attend them. The believers may also wonder why God made houses for those
midwives to live in, when if the Israelites were so exceedingly fruitful
and numerous, the midwives could have but little time to live in their
own houses, but must have been always employed in their professional
avocations. Admirers of God's truthfulness may likewise wonder why he
rewarded the midwives for telling Pharaoh a lie, when by his power he
might have saved them the necessity.
*Chapter ii., vv. 16, 17, 18. From these verses it would seem that the
name of the father-in-law of Moses was Reuel, but according to chap.
iii., v. 1, chap, iv., v. 18, chap, xviii., vv. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12, his
name was not Reuel, but Jethro, while according to Numbers, chap, x., v.
29, his name was neither Reuel nor Jethro, but was Raguel. On reference
to the Hebrew text, I find the same word [------] is carelessly
anglicised as Reuel and Raguel; this will not, however, explain the
third name, Jethro, and if we treat Moses as the author, it will be
difficult to understand how he could be mistaken in the correct name of
his own father-in-law.
Verses 23 and 24. These verses imply that until the cries and groanings
came up to God, he had forgotten his chosen Israelites, and his solemn
covenant, oath, and promise. This view is confirmed by the Douay
translation of verse 25, which adds, 'And the Lord looked upon the
children of Israel, and he knew them.' As though he had refreshed his
memory by so looking on them.
*Chapter iii., v. 2. The Douay says that 'the Lord appeared,' instead of
the angel. The picture of the Omnipotent and: Eternal God appearing as
a flame of fire in the middle of a bush, which burns, but is not burnt,
and desiring Moses to take his shoes off, is scarcely calculated to
arouse a reverential feeling in our minds.
Verse 6. In Genesis, chap, xxxv., v. 10, God said of Jacob, 'Thy name
shall not be any more called Jacob, Israel is thy name,' yet we find
he calls himself 'the God of Jacob,' and uses the name 'Jacob' no fewer
than eight times in the book of Exodus alone. {50} Verse 22. This mode
of 'borrowing' seems very much like stealing, and the translators of
the Breeches Bible in a note say that this example is not to be followed
generally.
*Chapter iv., v. 14. The anger of the Lord kindled, and why? Because
Moses tells him that ne is not a good speaker, and that he (Moses)
therefore desired the Lord to choose somebody else to represent his
wishes to Pharaoh and the Jews. But why should the Lord be angry?
he must have himself foreknown and foreordained that Moses should be
reluctant to go.
Verse 21. What are the miracles which are previously mentioned but so
many incidents in a solemn farce, if God had already determined that
Pharaoh should pay no attention to them? The serpent, rod, and the
leprous hand, not being intended by God to move Pharaoh, of what use
are they? In the third chapter, God tells Moses to use subterfuge to
Pharaoh, by pretending that the Jewish nation only wanted to go three
days' journey to sacrifice in the wilderness, and at the same time God
says that he is 'sure the King of Egypt will not let you go.' If God is
the ruler and ordainer of all things, he must have ruled and ordained
that his chosen people should be ill-treated by Pharaoh, whom God must
have created for that very purpose. Can anything be more inconsistent
and less calculated to enable us to admire the character of a just and
merciful Deity?
Verse 26. What does this mean? If the Lord sought to kill Moses, what
hindered him from carrying out his desire? It is strange that he should
seek to kill the very man whom he had selected to lead his chosen people
out of Egypt. The circumcision of the son of Moses seems connected with
the story, but not very clearly. The abrupt transition from the message
to Pharaoh, to the seeking to kill Moses, shows that something has been
lost from the original text. The verses 22 to 27 read as they stand are
absurd. In our version we are told that _after_ the Lord let Moses go,
Zipporah said 'A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.'
In the Douay we find that Zipporah used these words _before_ the Lord
let Moses go.
Verses 28, 29, and 30. Aaron who wrought the signs, and spoke the words
to the people, did so without any direct communication from God. He
must have been more credulous than Moses, for he seems to have readily
undertaken, upon the mere representation of his brother, that which his
brother had hesitated to do, although personally commanded by God.
In chap, v, we find that Moses complains to God that the Jews are
worse off since his message, and he expresses himself in a manner which
implies doubt as to whether God really intend to deliver his people.
*Chapter vi., v. 3 (see also page 38 of this work), Here is a positive
statement that God was known unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the
name [------] (Bal Shadi, translated, God Almighty), but not by the name
[------] (yeue, anglicised as Jehovah). This statement, professedly
from the lips of God himself, is absolutely contradicted by the book of
Genesis, in which the name [------] occurs no less than {51} 130 times.
In the Douay it reads, 'and my name Adonai I did not show them,' and in
a foot-note we are told that the name Adonai is substituted for the
four letters [------], because the Jews out of reverence never pronounce
"this word. This is not true: the Jews simply do not pronounce the word,
because without points it is unpronounceable. 'The nearest approach to
the exact utterance or pronunciation of this word will be produced by
suspending the action of all the organs of articulation, and making
only that convulsive heave of the larynx, by which the bronchial
vessels discharge the accumulated phlegm; it is enunciated with the
most eloquent propriety in the act of _vomiting?_ (_Vide_ Taylor's
'Diegesis,' chap. 22.)
Verses 12 and 30. The fear expressed by Moses that Pharaoh will not
listen to him, because he (Moses) has not been circumcised, is strongly
corroborative of Voltaire's criticism given on page 35 of this work.
Verses 26 and 27 could never have been written by Moses, but must have
been written long after, by some one who wished to identify the Aaron
and Moses of the genealogy with the Aaron and Moses to whom the Lord
spoke.
*Chapter vii., v. 1. What is meant by the words 'I have made thee a God
to Pharaoh?' In what sense could Moses be considered as Pharaoh's God?
He was not worshipped by Pharaoh, nor did he rule Pharaoh.
Verses 10, 11, and 12. Is it necessary to argue in the middle of
the nineteenth century that the whole account of these miracles are
unreasonable as well as impossible? unreasonable, because even the
most pious Theist, if he claimed for God the power to turn a rod into
a serpent, would hardly concede the same power to the sorcerers and
magicians of Egypt. The throwing down the rod by Aaron, its change into
a serpent, and the swallowing the other rods, form a display without
purpose or utility, because God has already predestined that they should
produce no effect whatever upon Pharaoh.
Verses 19, 20, and 21. These verses, if they mean anything, mean that
the _whole of the water_ in Egypt was turned to blood; if so, the
twenty-second verse would be incorrect in stating that the magicians did
the same, because, _if all the water_ were already turned to blood by
Aaron, there would not be any left for the magicians to operate upon. We
are told that this plague was throughout the whole of the land of Egypt;
if so, the Jews must have suffered equally with the Egyptians. This for
seven days in a warm country would have been a terrible plague. The same
remarks apply to the following plague of frogs.
*Chapter viii., w. 17 and 18. It is scarcely a matter for wonder that
the magicians could not turn the dust into lice, when we are told that
_all the dust_ had been previously changed bv Aaron.
Verses 22 and 23. It is evident from these verses that the Jews had been
equal participators in all the evils attaching to the previous plagues.
*Chapter ix., v. 10. What beasts could the boils break out on, when
all were killed by murrain in verse 6? {52} Verses 19, 20, 21, and 25.
Either the cattle which were dead in verse 6 had been restored to life,
of which we have no account, or these verses are positively absurd as
well as false.
*Chapter xi., v. 3. 'And the Lord _gave_ the people favour in the sight
of the Egyptians.' The Douay reads, 'And the Lord _will give_ favour to
his people.' Our version is evidently incorrect, because the Egyptians
afterwards suffered another plague, which would have been unnecessary.
'And the man Moses was very great in the land.' Moses can scarcely be
supposed to have written this.
*Chapter xii., v. 29. In this verse is related the horrible consummation
of a series of plagues which God had caused to fall on the Egyptians.
And why all this punishment? Was it because the Egyptians as a nation
had oppressed the Israelites? If so, the cattle, the trees, and the
green herbs were sharers in the punishment although not in the offence,
and the Egyptians could never have oppressed the Israelites if it had
not been permitted by the Omnipotent Deity who had sworn to protect
and cherish them. Was the punishment because Pharaoh would not let
the Children of Israel go? If so, what had the first-born of the
'maid-servant in the mill and of the captive in the dungeon' to do with
his offence? But even Pharaoh was specially controlled by God; in chap,
iv., v. 21, chap, vii., v. 3, chap, ix., v. 12, chap, x., vv. 1, 20, and
27, chap, xi., v. 10, and chap, xiv., v. 4, we have distinct repetitions
of the statement that God himself hardened Pharaoh's heart and prevented
him from allowing the Children of Israel to go. Then, why all this
punishment? In chap, ix., v. 16, chap, x., v. 2, and chap. xiv. v. 4, we
are told that God raised Pharaoh up for the very purpose of smiting him
and his people, so that the name of God might be declared throughout all
the earth, that the Israelites might worship the Lord, and that the
name of God might be honoured amongst the Egyptians; and to attain this
result, God plagues and torments the Egyptian nation with most painful
and destructive plagues, killing the first-born in every family, from
him that sat on the throne to the captive in the dungeon, and ending by
drowning Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea. The religious thinker who
attempts to contemplate this horrible picture, and who might, perhaps,
be tempted to blaspheme by questioning God's justice and goodness, will
be saved from this dilemma by a consciousness of the falsity of the
whole tale, which is manifested in a most ridiculous manner. According
to chap, ix., vv. 3 and 6, all the cattle of the Egyptians, their
horses, asses, camels, oxen, and sheep, were killed by the murrain; by
verse 10 of the same chapter, a boil breaking forth with blains is sent
upon the same cattle; by verse 19 the Egyptians are cautioned to gather
in _their already dead cattle_ lest they should again die from the
effects of the hail, and those who feared the Lord amongst the servants
of Pharaoh made his _dead_ cattle flee into the house lest they should
be killed again, and those who did not fear the Lord had their cattle
killed a second time by the hail; in chap, x., v. 25, Moses asks Pharaoh
to give him some of his _twice killed_ cattle that he may kill them a
third time as sacrifices to the Lord; in chap. {53} xii., v. 29, God,
in the night, kills the first-born of all the cattle, some of which must
have been _thrice_ killed; yet, despite all this (notwithstanding they
had all been killed by the murrain, nearly killed over again by the
boils and blains, killed another time by the hail, and the first-born
destroyed in the night-time by the Lord) we find Pharaoh with an army of
chariots, horses, and Horsemen, who are finally and irreversably got rid
of by being drowned in the Red Sea. In Thomas Paine's 'Essay on Dreams,'
he makes some very severe remarks upon the contemptible picture which
Old Testament writers give of their God in relation to these plagues
upon the Egyptians.
*Chapter xii., vv. 35 and 36. This is clearly nothing but robbery. The
Egyptians simply lent because they could not avoid doing so; it was
quite a Russian loan, raised by force. After saying that the Lord gave
the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, the expression, 'And
they spoiled the Egyptians,' reads with a curious meaning.
Verses 40 and 41 have been noticed on page 32 of this work. Stephen,
in Acts, chap, vii., v. 6, says it was four hundred years. Dr. John Pye
Smith, with all his orthodoxy, felt that there was a great difficulty to
encounter, and writes as follows:--
'Many comprehend in this reckoning the time from the communication to
Abraham (Genesis, chap, xv., v. 13) or his entrance into Canaan ten
years earlier. This will leave only two hundred and fifteen years for
the sojourn in Egypt. Yet, during that period, the population increased
to what would give 603,550 _warriors_, men above twenty years old, not
including the tribe of Levi (Numbers, chap, i., v. 46). Hence, it is
scarcely imaginable that the whole number of the nation could be
less than two millions; an increase from seventy-two, which is quite
impossible. Supposing that they doubled themselves every fourteen years,
the number would have been less than half a million. But if four hundred
and thirty years be taken, the increase is probable. We see, also, that
the males of the whole family of Kohath were 8,600 (Numbers, chap, iii.,
v. 28); yet Kohath had only four sons (Exodus, chap, vi., v. 18), from
whom the grandsons mentioned are eight in number, none being mentioned
from Hebron, who, perhaps, died childless. Also, that the father of
Moses should have married the daughter of Levi, appears impossible.
Surely, then, one or more generations have fallen out from the table
(Exodus, chap, vi., vv. 17 and 18).'
By this extract from Dr. John Pye Smith's 'First Lines of Christian
Theology,' my reader will see the manner in which orthodox divines
overcome difficulties in the text. Finding that it is impossible to
receive this part as true, it is suggested that one or more generations
may have fallen out of the table, and that it was impossible that the
father of Moses could have married the daughter of Levi. Exodus,
chap, vi., v. 20, is precise on this point; but taking Dr. Smith's
explanation, how can we place reliance on a book as a revelation from
God, which is admitted to be imperfect and untruthful in {54} any part?
If fallible in matter of detail, it is probably the same in matters of
doctrine.
Verse 44. This is one of the verses on which the slaveholders of America
rely. I shall deal with the question more fully hereafter.
*Chapter xiii., v. 2. By this and several other texts, it appears that
the first-born, both of man and beast, were devoted to the Lord. It is
quite clear that the beasts were slaughtered as sacrifices, but it
is not so clear as to the fate of the human beings. There are special
regulations for their redemption, by the payment of cattle, but the
unredeemed are not mentioned. It is apparent from Leviticus, chap,
xxvii, w. 27 and 28, the history of Jephtha's daughter, Judges, chap,
xii., that human sacrifices were parcel of the Jewish religious rites;
a portion of their prisoners seem to have been sacrificed to the Lord
after each victory, as in other idolatrous nations; and in Jephtha's
case, we find these remarkable words after the account of the sacrifice,
'And it was a custom in Israel.'
Verses 17 and 18. Even a devout believer might be sadly puzzled by these
verses. Was God afraid lest the people should repent? and did he express
that fear to his confidant, Moses, or in what manner, and to whom did
God speak? Did God lead his chosen people into Egypt to avoid all wars?
if so, how comes it that we almost immediately hear of the battle with
the Amalekites? (_vide_ chap. 17). God's fears seem ill-founded, for the
Jews although they had a very hard fight with the Amalekites, even with
God's aid, never talked of returning to Egypt, in consequence of that
fight.
*Chapter xiv., vv. 24 and 25. Our authorised translation reads, 'The
Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire
and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, and took off
their chariot wheels that they drave them heavily.' In the Douay it is,
'The Lord, looking upon the Egyptian army through the pillar of fire
and of the cloud, slew their host and overthrew the wheels of their
chariots, and they were carried into the deep.'
Verse 31. The Israelites' belief in the Lord and in his servant Moses
was of a very unstable nature, notwithstanding all the mighty miracles
alleged to have been wrought in their presence. If the Israelites
doubted Moses and disbelieved in God, with the terrible series of
plagues fresh in their recollection, can it be wondered that we, to whom
they are related in so incoherent a style, at this distance of time,
should also have misgivings as to their truth?
*Chapter xv., v. 3. This expression, 'The Lord is a man of war,' is
hardly calculated to inspire us with that love of God it is alleged to
be so necessary to our salvation.
Verse 8. 'Nostrils.' This, we are told, is to be read as figurative.
How unfortunate that in a revelation words are used which are to be
understood as meaning something different from the real signification.
Verse 11. Who are the Gods? In the Douay the phrase is translated,
'Who is like unto thee amongst the strong, O Lord?' The Roman Catholics
wished to avoid the suspicion of polytheism. {55} Verse 12. Poetic
licence is used here; it was not the earth, but the water, which
swallowed the Egyptians.
Chanter xvi., v. 3. If we may judge by the Israelites' own account,
starvation was not one of the phases of oppression suffered by them in
Egypt.
Verse 4. It is clear that the Deity of Moses was not an Omniscient
Deity, for he says, 'I will rain bread from heaven for you, etc., that I
may prove them whether they will walk in my law or no;' so that God did
not know until he had proved them whether they would obey or disobey,
and yet we are taught that he is the Infinite and Omnipotent ordainer of
all things.
Verse 8. This verse must be misplaced, as Moses had not yet been
informed that God intended to give the Israelites flesh. See verses 4
and 12.
Verse 15. The children of Israel did not call the bread from heaven
manna, but they said when they saw it, [------] (Man eua), i.e., What is
this?
Verses 20 to 24. By these verses it appears that while the manna
invariably putrified if kept till the second day on six days of the
week, yet, if the second day happened to be the seventh, then no
putrefaction took place. This corresponds with what I have heard as to
some Scotch cities, in which the Sabbath is so strictly observed, that
if salts or jalap happened to be taken as medicine on Saturday night,
they refused to work during the whole of Sunday.
Verse 35 has been noticed on page 6.
Verse 36 must have been written when the omer had become obsolete as a
measure amongst the Jews, or the verse would be unnecessary.
*Chapter xvii., w. 5 and 6. This striking the rock for water is a
miracle; a devout man may believe in it; I confess I do not understand
the process, although I admit it would be very useful in the desert, if
practicable.
Verses 9 to 13. Can any man believe that if Napoleon had stood on an
eminence near the scene at Waterloo, and had held up his hand, this
would have influenced the success of either party? Why should a man
believe that in relation to Moses to which he would refuse credence in
the present day? and if God was really on the side of the Israelites,
why did he allow his aid to depend upon whether Moses could hold up his
hand?
Verses 14 and 16. Why was Amalek to be so punished? God the Creator must
have created both Amalekites and Israelites, yet he favours the latter
and declares war against the former from generation to generation. What
a strange idea to convey in relation to an Omnipotent Deity--strife
between the Infinite God and his weak and puny creature. By the
expression 'the Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek
from generation to generation,' true believers may learn that God
predetermined to make war upon unborn generations of Amalekites, whom he
created for the purpose of exterminating.
*Chapter xviii., vv. 1 to 6. Some part of the previous history must {56}
be lost, as we have no account of Moses sending his wife back; on the
contrary, in chap, iv., v. 20, we are told that he took both her and his
two sons into Egypt.
Jethro gave his son-in-law very sensible advice, and the only matter
of surprise is that Moses listened to it. Usually, priests of different
religions snarl at one another like angry, half-fed curs, growling
over a solitary bone, and if a priest of one sect (out of the ordinary
course) offered good advice to another sect, it would probably be
treated with neglect and contempt.
*Chapter xix., w. 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 19. In these verses we have
an account of the meeting of Moses and God. If this had been in the
book of Mormon or in the Koran, some Christian critic would have at once
exclaimed, 'Why, this is all imposture! for these reasons--the man
who led the people, and who wished to pretend that he was to have
an interview with God, took very great pains to keep the people at a
sufficient distance to prevent detection of his schemes; the trumpet
sounding, the darkness, the thunder and lightning, are so many scenic
appliances to give effect to the delusion. Perhaps the mount was a
volcanic one, in which case the addition of the trumpet soundings
completed the scene; and the secrecy observed as to all the transactions
on the mount protected the man from exposure. How careful are the
directions given to prevent any inquisitive straggler from getting
sufficiently near to make a fatal discovery! But no man in his senses
will believe that God blew a trumpet, or caused a trumpet to be blown,
to announce his coming, and that he descended upon Sinai surrounded by
fire and smoke. In all fabulous relations we find such things, but it is
absurd to suppose that this refers to an Almighty and Infinite Deity. We
are told in verse 20, 'The Lord came down upon Mount Sinai on the top
of the mount, and the Lord called Moses up to the top of the mount, and
Moses went up.' Can you require stronger evidence of the mythological
character of your book? Your Omnipresent and Infinite Deity is pictured
as standing on the top of a mountain, and calling to Moses, who was down
below, to come up to him.
Verse 15. This is one of the verses which no amount of commentary can
make intelligible: 'Come not at your wives.' Why not?
*Chapter xx. The second verse of this chapter begins in the first
person, 'I am the Lord,' and continues in the first person to verse
6, where it merges into the third person. Verse 5 is contradicted
by Ezekiel, chap, xviii., v. 20, 2 Kings, chap, xiv., v. 6, and
Deuteronomy, chap, xxiv., v. 16. This is as positive and distinct
a specimen of contradiction as can be found anywhere. In the third
commandment we are told that God is a jealous God, visiting the sins of
the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. In
the other three texts, we are told that the child shall not be put to
death for the father, but every man for his own sin. By the following
contrast of the Fourth Commandment, as given in the second and fifth
books of the Pentateuch, biblical students may judge how far they may
rely on the reasons for closing the museums, mechanics' {57} institutes
and crystal palaces, and opening churches, chapels, and gin palaces on
the seventh day, Chap. xx., vv. 8, 9, 10, 11.
8.--Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.
9.--Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10.--But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that
is within thy gates:
11. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all
that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed
the seventh day, and hallowed it.
DEUT. Chap, v., w. 12, 13, 14, 15.
12.--Keep the Sabbath-day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath
commanded thee.
13.--Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
14.--But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou
shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy
man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor
any of thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates; that thy
man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.
15.--And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and
that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and
by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to
keep the Sabbath-day.
Which is the correct reason for sanctifying the Sabbath-day?
Was it because the Lord rested, or because the Lord brought the
Israelites out of Egypt on that day? The true believer will devoutly
answer, 'The Lord only knows.'
*Chapter xxi., vv. 2 to 6. Leviticus, chap, xxv., vv. 44 to 46. In these
verses we find slavery acknowledged, and its continuance provided for
by the law of God. The offering a slave his liberty on condition that he
abandoned his wife whom he loved, and his children who are of his flesh
and blood, is a piece of refined cruelty. Perhaps God did not know that
a slave was capable of love, perhaps God was not aware that the slave
in his hovel may have as true and as warm an affection for his wife and
children as the king in his palace, or the noble in his fine mansion. Is
a slave a man with a man's passions and feelings, or is he an inferior
animal? If the Bible is to be examined before replying to the question,
and if we are to govern our mode of answering by the words we find
there, it ceases to be a matter for wonder that there are slave States
in Christian countries.
It is a beautiful theory this, and worthy of a place in a revelation
from an all-wise and all-good God--i. e., that a man may be a religious
man and yet keep his brother and sister as male and female slaves,
breeding and begetting other slaves. How did this slavery originate?
before the flood slaves are not mentioned. If God made all men
originally free, how did any become slaves? {58} Verse 6 is contradicted
in Leviticus, chap, xxv., w. 39 to 42.
Verses 7 to 11. These verses contain a provision for the sale by a
man of his own daughter. And for what purpose? Our translators have
endeavoured to hide the real meaning of the text. Verse 7 reads, 'And
if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as
the _men servants_ do.'
In the Douay it is, 'If a man sell his daughter to be a servant, she
shall not go out as _bondwomen_ are wont to go out.'
The 8th verse in our translation reads--'If she please not her master,
who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed
to sell her to a strange nation; he shall have no power seeing _he hath
dealt deceitfully with her_.' In the Douay, 'If she displease the eyes
of her master to whom she was delivered, he shall let her go, but he
shall have no power to sell her to a foreign nation _if he despise her?_
In the Breeches Bible the whole truth is revealed, for we find the last
words of the 8th verse translated, '_seeing he hath deflowered her_.'
Lest there should be a mistake, I will further contrast the translation
of verse 10. In our version it is, 'If he take him another _wife_ her
food, her raiment, and her _duty of marriage_ he shall not diminish.'
In the Douay, 'If he take another wife for him, he shall provide her
a marriage, and raiment, neither shall he refuse the _price of her
chastity_.'
In the Breeches Bible, 'If he take him another wife, he shall not
diminish her food, her raiment, and _recompense of her virginity?_
Can any man doubt as to the real meaning of these verses? Is it not
clear and beyond contradiction that here is a law professedly from a God
of truth and purity, rendering it lawful for a man to prostitute his
own daughter. Our translators have cleverly glossed the text, partially
hiding its disgusting meaning, but still enough was left to excite
suspicion. I have investigated it, and now lay the result before you,
and ask you one and all is this the Book from which you let your little
girls read, and from which you expect them to acquire that knowledge
which shall render them happy and virtuous?
I have already remarked upon the recognition of slavery by God. We have
seen how Ishmael was not allowed to participate in the promised land,
because he was born a slave. But it remained for us to read more of
this Bible before we discovered that a just God, who is no respector of
persons, who is the father of us all, who loves the whole world, and who
looks alike upon king and peasant, could make such a regulation as the
following:--
Verses 20 and 21. 'And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with
a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
Notwithstanding, if he continue for a day or two, he shall not be
punished, for he is his money.' We are here told that if one of God's
children, whom God caused to be born free, kills another of God's
children, whom God has caused to be born a slave, the murderer shall
escape punishment, if (as the Douay quaintly expresses it) the party
remain alive a day or two after the infliction of the punishment, which
was the primary cause of death. Why is this mercy? is it because {59}
God so loves all the world that he does not wish to shed the blood of
any man? No: but because the slave killed is the murderer's money. He
(the murderer) bought and paid for that slave with bright gold and the
power of gold is recognised even in the kingdom of God. To-day
the Society for Suppression of Cruelty to Animals would prosecute and
obtain the committal to prison of any man, who, on such prosecution,
should be found guilty of beating his horse or his dog, so that it died
on the second or third day. It would be no defence to urge on the part
of the prisoner that he had paid for the ill-used animal. The whole
auditory would hiss the advocate who raised such a defence. But in
a trial at the last day before the Supreme Judge, when a 'Legree' is
accused of the murder of an 'Uncle Tom,' may raise a valid defence with
the words, 'He was my money.' The power of gold will open the gates of
heaven to the murderer, who can look complacently down into hell upon
the murderers who had no money.
*Chapter xxii., v. ll. Here oaths are commanded; in Matthew, chap. v.,
w. 34 to 37, and James, chap, v., v. 12, they are forbidden.
Verse 18. 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.' In the Douay,
'Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.' Can we wonder that our criminal
courts occasionally reveal a scene of life in which we see one man
parting with his hard-earned pence to propitiate another man, whom he
believes to possess some supernatural power? It is customary on such
occasions, for the presiding magistrate to deplore the ignorance of
the labouring classes, and to exclaim against the folly of believing
in witches and wizards, yet he swears the complainant on the Bible,
containing this verse, and would refuse to receive his evidence, if,
after hearing the magistrate's opinion on the folly of believing in
witchcraft, he should happen to remark, 'Then I cannot believe in the
Bible.'
Verses 20 and 28, and chap, xxiii., v. 13. Who and what are these Gods,
and why these commands? The sole end of this religion is the worship of
one God, yet here are other Gods referred to. If I sacrifice to them, I
hazard destruction, and if I revile them, I shall fare no better. As for
cursing the ruler of my people, I am one of those who deem curses to
be vain words, which a man had far better leave unuttered; if the ruler
does wrong, let him rule no longer, but let the people place another in
his stead.
*Chapter xxiv., vv. 9 to 14, are contradicted in chap, xxxiii., v.
20, John, chap, i., v. 18, 1st Epistle of John, chap, iv., v. 12, 1st
Epistle to Timothy, chap, i., v. 17, Colossians, chap, i. vv. 15. It
cannot be urged that this is figurative, because the evident intention
is to give a literal account of seventy-four persons going up to see
God. To what place they went up is not clear, it was not the mount, or
but a short distance on it, for Moses and Joshua left them, and went up
from them into the mount.
In the Hindoo mythology we shall find several instances of Gods,
under whose feet paved work may be seen; but these Gods are neither
omnipotent, infinite, nor omniscient. All enlightened Christians admit
{60} that the whole list of Indian deities is fabulous, and while they
gaze on the curious pictures given in the 'Asiatic Researches,' and
other works, they feel convinced of the superiority of their own
system, which is free from such ridiculous absurdities. But how do these
enlightened Christians deal with this chapter, which tells them their
'invisible' God was seen by seventy-four men in a fiery mount, with as
it were, a paved work under his feet?
Dr. John Pye Smith, never at a loss, easily reconciles these apparent
discrepancies by asserting that they refer to the different persons
of the Father and the Messiah, but this is only 'confusion worse
confounded,' for it is quite clear that it was not the Messiah who is
referred to, either here or in the many other texts speaking of the
appearance of the Lord to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it is also clear
that Jesus was not invisible; so we are left without aid from the
Reverend Dr.'s comment, and must still wonder how an 'invisible' God
ever appeared to anybody.
*Chapter xxv., v. 30. Here is an absurd and useless regulation. God
could not and did not eat this bread.
Verse 40. What patterns were these, and is not Moses supposed to be in
the mount when these words were spoken? This verse either refers to a
previous interview, of which we have no account, or else this did not
take place in the mount at all.
*Chapter xxviii., w. 40, 41, and 42. Can anything be more puerile than
to imagine the God of the universe giving directions for the particular
description of girdle, bonnet, and breeches to be worn by some
insignificant puny creatures, crawling on the outside of a little planet
called the earth?
*Chapter xxix., v. 44. At the very time that God was thus intimating
that he would sanctify Aaron, the latter must have been engaged in the
manufacture of the calf. Did God know this? If he did, it is hard to
understand how he chose an idolator for his priest. If otherwise, God
is not omniscient. The family of Levi, who were so severely cursed by
Jacob, seem the most favoured by Jacob's God.
*Chapter xxx., v. 6. It is not quite clear where this altar was to be
placed; but from the text it appears to have been placed in the 'holiest
of holies,' which creates a doubt as to how an altar in daily use could
be situate in a place only entered once a year. The text is, however,
rather complex in its description, and I may be mistaken in my reading.
Verse 15. The words 'when they gave an offering unto the Lord to make
atonement for your souls,' are totally omitted in the Douay version.
Verses 22 to 38. God, who is a God of love and full of mercy and loving
kindness, here ordains that every man who shall manufacture a particular
kind of scented pomatum, shall be put to death. Christian Theist, you
tell me that yours is the 'eternal, immortal, and only wise God' (_vide_
1st Timothy, chap, i., v. 17)--do you in truth believe that he would
order me to be utterly cut off because I might perhaps unconsciously
make a scented ointment of a particular character? Do {61} you believe
if I take a certain description of perfumed pomatum, and 'smell
thereto,' previous to rubbing some on the hair of my head, that I shall
be put to death? Perhaps these enactments were only meant for the Jews,
who seem to have required some strange laws; if so, it is a pity God has
allowed the Book to come to us in its present state, as we find it hard
to conceive (without any fact to reason upon) that one verse is intended
only for the Jews, and the following one intended for the whole world.
*Chapter xxxi., v. 15. Moses would never have joined the 'Society for
Abolition of Capital Punishment,' if it had been established in his day.
This verse must have since become a dead letter, an obsolete statute
which God does not enforce in the present age. But if this verse is a
dead letter, how much more of the Bible is affected in the same manner?
Who is to tell which enactments may be safely disobeyed, and which carry
with them the terrible penalty?
V. 17. 'He rested and was refreshed.' Although even the most faithful
and pious believer must have great difficulty in attempting to
contemplate that stupendous work, the creation of the universe out
of nothing, yet this great difficulty sinks into utter insignificance
beside the greater one of endeavouring to imagine the omnipotent and
immutable Deity resting after his labour, and being refreshed.
V. 18. The expression 'finger of God' is evidently intended to be
understood literally here, but the question then arises as to the
nature of an infinite spirit without body, parts, or passions (_vide_
thirty-nine articles), yet having fingers, hands, face, and back
parts. Dr. Pye Smith says, on the [----------] (anthropopatheia) of
the Scriptures (treatment of God as if possessing a human shape
and nature)--'This is very remarkable and very extensive, but it is
manifested by comparison with many other parts of the Scriptures, that
the terms employed are terms of _condescending comparison_ with the acts
and effects of the thus mentioned organs of the human body, to convey,
especially to unpolished men a conception of those properties and
actions of God, which to our feeble ideas have a resemblance, and that
they were so understood. Language had not then terms for the expression
of abstract conceptions.'
The Christian theologian tells me that God created man and all the
circumstances that surrounded him, yet speaks of 'human incapacity,
and infirmity,' and of 'the language of the Scriptures being formed in
condescension thereto.'
Is it not remarkable that the all-wise Creator should have not foreseen
the time when the language of his revelation should have sunken below
the level of the human capacity? But it is worse than folly to put
forward hypotheses as to God's condescension in using such language.
The Book itself nowhere suggests such an idea, and I ask to what mind
(however 'unpolished' he may be) can the following words convey any
other conception of the properties and actions of God than that of the
literal reading?--
'And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts, but
my face shall not be seen.' {62} Dr. Smith says that 'metaphysical
or philosophical preciseness is not in the character of Scriptural
composition,' yet upon our precise conception of the true meaning of
that composition, hangs the penalty of eternal torment.
*Chapter xxxii. During the absence of Moses, the Jewish people applied
to Aaron to make them other Gods; they used very disrespectful language,
saying 'As for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of
Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.' Aaron, who had been specially
chosen by God to be his priest and Prophet, instead of reminding the
people of the miracles God had just performed on their behalf, instead
of reproving them for the slighting manner in which they had spoken of
his brother Moses, instead even of appealing to Nadab and Abhu, and the
seventy elders who had personally seen God so shortly before, and
who must all have been impressed with the awful majesty of the Deity,
forgetting the first and second commandment contained in chapter xx.,
w. 3, 4, and 5, and that their God is a jealous God, forgetting also the
repetition contained in v. 23 of the same chapter, Aaron (who alone
had been nominated to enter the holy of holies), without the slightest
attempt at reason or remonstrance, asked the people for their golden
earrings, and made a molten calf, and built an altar before it, and
proclaimed a feast; and the people said, 'These be thy Gods, O Israel,
which brought thee out of the land of Egypt.'
God was very unfortunate in his choice; his chosen people are the first
to forget him, or to doubt and deny his power. The miracles performed
by Moses and Aaron in Egypt--events any one of which should have been
sufficient to have struck terror into the Israelites for the remainder
of their lives--the interview between God and the seventy-four, only a
few days before, were all forgotten. God having permitted all this
to happen, informed Moses thereof, and then uses this remarkable
phrase--'Let me alone that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that
I may consume them, and I will make of thee a great nation.' Is this the
language of an infinite and immutable Deity?
Moses reasoned with God, and endeavoured to persuade him not to allow
his wrath to wax hot, and ultimately the unchangeable changed his mind,
and 'repented of the evil he thought to do his people.' The mode of
expostulation adopted by Moses is very remarkable (see vv. 11, 12, and
13); one of the chief arguments used is not as to the merits of the
case, but as to what the Egyptians will say when they hear about it.
Vv. 15 to 19. Moses, considering that he was so meek a man, soon lost
his temper, and the act of throwing down the tables, betrays rather the
character of a hasty petulant man.
V. 20. Gold is a metal distinguished by its extreme permanence in air
and fire, by its malleability and ductility; it might have been melted
by the action of fire, but could not be burnt--i.e., consumed by fire.
The Douay says that Moses 'beat it to powder;' this would be impossible,
as it is so malleable, that it may be beaten into leaves {63} not more
than the 280,000th part of an inch in thickness. Our version says,
'ground it to powder;' this would be a difficult task, unless Moses
had other aids than we are aware of. The Golden Calf being reduced to
powder, Moses strewed it upon the water, and made the Israelites drink
of it. Unless a chloride of gold had been formed by the use of chlorine
and nitro-muriatic acid, and of which we have no account, the gold would
not be soluble in water, but would sink to the bottom, leaving the water
entirely unaffected. After this Moses collected the tribe of Levi, who
had been equally guilty with their brethren in the worship of the calf,
and set them to slaughter every man his neighbour. In this slaughter
there fell, according to our version, 3,000 men, but according to the
Douay, 23,000 men were slain. Whichever version is right, it is evident
that Aaron, who deserved the most punishment, escaped scot-free. The
Lord's vengeance was not satisfied with even this terrible sacrifice
of human life; and we are told, in the unique phraseology of the Bible,
that 'the Lord plagued the people because _they made_ the calf which
_Aaron_ made.'
*Chapter xxxiii., vv. 1 to 3, and chap, xxxiv., v. 11. Judea was not
a land flowing with milk and honey, and the Lord did not drive out the
Canaanite and the other nations mentioned (_vide_ Joshua, chap. xvii.,
v. 12 and 13; Judges chap, i., vv. 19, and 27 to 35; chap, ii., vv» 20
to 23, and chap, iii., vv. 1 to 6).
Vv. 4, 5, and 6. Why did the Lord want the children of Israel to put
off their ornaments? If in any other book than the Bible some shrewd
Christians would shake their heads and say, We are afraid Moses and
Aaron were not quite honest--first, they deprive the people of their
gold earrings under one pretext, and now they defraud them of their
remaining trinkets, under the pretence that the Lord commands them to
put them off.
Vv. 9 and 10. This 'pillar of cloud' is a favourite shape, and if the
whole were an imposture, it would have been an easy matter for Moses
by artificial means to have raised a 'pillar of cloud' when he pleased,
especially as such precautions were taken to prevent too close an
examination by the Israelites.
V. 11. Apart from any question of contradiction (which has been noticed
on page 59), is not this verse condemned by itself? Its purpose and
meaning is to raise Moses in the estimation of its readers, and to
effect this object it degrades the Deity by the very terms it uses, the
conversation contained in verses 12 to 20 has all the same tendency,
making it appear that Moses was God's favourite, and that God _knew his
name_.
In verse 13, instead of 'show me thy way,' the Douay has 'show me thy
face;' this accounts for the expression in v. 20, 'Thou canst not see my
face,' but it distinctly contradicts the 'face to face' of verse 11.
V. 23 needs no comment; but I defy any man to read this verse
thoughtfully, and yet be filled with awe and admiration for a Deity,
who only allows his favoured Prophet to see his 'back parts.' The
{64} absurdity is heightened by the remembrance of the many distinct
appearances of God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and shortly before to
Moses himself, and seventy-three other persons who all saw God.
*Chapter xxxiv., v. 3. The same precaution to prevent detection, if
imposture was really being perpetrated.
Verse 6. 'The Lord God merciful and gracious.' When? where? and how? Was
it when cursing the first man and woman, and the very ground on which
they stood (Genesis, chap, iii.); or when he determined to destroy
both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air
(Genesis, chap, vi., v. 7); or when he rained brimstone and fire upon
Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis, chap, xix., v. 24); or when he slew the
firstborn in every family throughout Egypt (Exodus, chap, xii., v. 29);
or when he drowned all Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea (Exodus, chap,
xiv., v. 27); or when he swore to have war with Amalek from generation
to generation (Exodus, chap, xvii., v. 16); or when he killed Nadab
and Abihu with fire (Leviticus, chap. x., v. 2); or when he repeatedly
attached the penalty of death to the infringement of almost any article
of the ceremonial law; or when his fire consumed the people because they
complained (Numbers, chap. xi, v. 1); or when he smote them with a great
plague (verse 33); or when he ordered the man to be stoned to death who
was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers, chap, xv., v. 36);
or when he causes the earth to swallow Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and
all that appertained to them, and afterwards slew 250 more by fire, and
14,700 more by plague (Numbers, chap, xvi., vv. 31 to 35, and 49);
or when he sent fiery serpents to bite his people, so that they died
(Numbers, chap, xxi., v. 6); or when he sent the plague, and killed
24,000 of his people (Numbers, chap, xxv., v. 9); or when he directed
the terrible slaughter of the Midiantes (Numbers, chap. 31)? I might
multiply these texts, but have confined myself to the same Pentateuch in
which 'God's mercy, graciousness, and long suffering' are proclaimed
by himself. Any reader who wishes further to pursue the subject, is
referred to a pamphlet, written in answer to Bishop Watson's 'Apology
for the Bible,' and entitled 'The God of the Jews.'
Verse 14. 'The Lord, whose name is jealous, is a jealous God.' My
dictionary tells me that to be jealous is to be 'suspiciously vigilant,'
'suspiciously fearful.' The omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite Deity,
of what can he be jealous? Perhaps this phrase also is figurative.
Verses 29 and 30. The Douay says that after Moses had talked to the
Lord, his face was horned, and that the children of Israel, seeing the
horns, were afraid to come near him.
In concluding the comments on the Book of Exodus, I ask what is the
result of our investigation? We have found the Book to be thoroughly
worthless as a relation of actual occurrences, even when tested under
the most favourable auspices; it repeatedly and in important particulars
contradicts itself. It cannot be a revelation from God, because it
pictures an all-wise God choosing a man with an impediment in his
speech, to be a preacher, and relates that when the man {65} hesitated on account of his infirmity, God became angry at a difficulty
of his own creation, and which Moses could not help. It represents a
just God as seeking to kill (apparently without the slightest cause)
the very man whom he had just entrusted with the important mission of
releasing his chosen people from bondage; it speaks of an invisible God
as becoming visible; of an immutable God as being jealous; of a loving
God declaring war against unborn generations of his own creatures; of
a just God as punishing the people for following (the teachings of the
priest whom he had appointed, and yet allowing the criminal priest not
only to escape unpunished, but actually rewarded for his misconduct.)
It pictures a merciful and good God as tormenting and murdering the
Egyptians, solely for the purpose of convincing the Jews that he is
really the Lord God of Israel, and afterwards plagueing and slaughtering
those _very_ Israelites, because all the former cruelties practised on
their neighbours had not produced sufficient convincing effect on them.
It teaches monotheism in one verse, and polytheism in another.
It ought not to be used as an educational book amongst the children of
_men_, because it contains doctrines and precepts only fitted for the
offspring of _tyrants_ and _slaves_. It teaches that children may be
born slaves, and that their parents may sell them as slaves, and it
places money at a higher value than life, virtue, honour, or liberty.