Part 6 (1/2)
'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 G.o.d, 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.
BOOK II. EXODUS
The t.i.tle, 'Second Book of Moses,' is an interpolation, forming no part of the text. The remark on page four, as to t.i.tles 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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, x.x.xv., v. 10, G.o.d said of Jacob, 'Thy name shall not be any more called Jacob, Israel is thy name,' yet we find he calls himself 'the G.o.d 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 G.o.d had already determined that Pharaoh should pay no attention to them? The serpent, rod, and the leprous hand, not being intended by G.o.d to move Pharaoh, of what use are they? In the third chapter, G.o.d 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 G.o.d says that he is 'sure the King of Egypt will not let you go.' If G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 circ.u.mcision 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 b.l.o.o.d.y husband thou art, because of the circ.u.mcision.'
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 G.o.d. 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 G.o.d.
In chap, v, we find that Moses complains to G.o.d that the Jews are worse off since his message, and he expresses himself in a manner which implies doubt as to whether G.o.d really intend to deliver his people.
*Chapter vi., v. 3 (see also page 38 of this work), Here is a positive statement that G.o.d was known unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the name [------] (Bal Shadi, translated, G.o.d Almighty), but not by the name [------] (yeue, anglicised as Jehovah). This statement, professedly from the lips of G.o.d 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 subst.i.tuted for the four letters [------], because the Jews out of reverence never p.r.o.nounce ”this word. This is not true: the Jews simply do not p.r.o.nounce the word, because without points it is unp.r.o.nounceable. 'The nearest approach to the exact utterance or p.r.o.nunciation 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 acc.u.mulated 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 circ.u.mcised, 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 G.o.d to Pharaoh?' In what sense could Moses be considered as Pharaoh's G.o.d?
He was not wors.h.i.+pped 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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.