Part 4 (1/2)

'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 G.o.ds 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.sist 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 h.e.l.l, in the centre of the earth, and became devils. A devil, in the form of a serpent, tempted Eve, and d.a.m.ned 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 G.o.d'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 uncirc.u.mcised 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 'Circ.u.mcision.'

'”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 sh.o.r.es 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 circ.u.mcision; 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 princ.i.p.ally 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 circ.u.mcising new-born children since the enlargement of their commerce with the Greeks.”

'From this pa.s.sage of Herodotus, it is evident that many people had adopted circ.u.mcision; 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 circ.u.mcised, in order to be admitted to their mysteries. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to be circ.u.mcised 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 circ.u.mcised. It is clear, then, that for two hundred and five years, the Egyptians did not receive circ.u.mcision 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 princ.i.p.al 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 circ.u.mcised in the wilderness. ”I have delivered you from what const.i.tuted 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, b.u.t.ter, 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 G.o.d. It is here stated that a report of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah has reached G.o.d; that G.o.d 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 superst.i.tious man might fancy, but not that which we should expect a G.o.d would reveal. The argumentative conversation between G.o.d 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 a.s.suredly 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 fas.h.i.+on, that, which if stript of its tawdry gewgaws or solemn black cloak, is nothing but disgusting and degrading immorality.

I shall, therefore, pa.s.s with but scant notice, and without the slightest attempt at examination, all those chapters or verses which may be cla.s.sed 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 furnis.h.i.+ng 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 trans.m.u.tation. 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d withheld Abimelech from committing sin, why is he not as merciful to every one?

it would be more G.o.dlike 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.

G.o.d 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.'