Part 2 — CHAPTER XII. TEXTUAL CORRUPTIONS.

“The Bible does not contain the shadow of a shade of error from Genesis to Revelation”—Cheever.

“Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High.”—Bunyan.

Such are the dogmatic assertions of Bibliolaters. So much confidence do they pretend to repose in the doctrine of the Bible’s inerrancy that they propose the most crucial tests for its submission.

The Rev. Jeremiah Jones, one of the highest orthodox authorities on the canon, lays down this rule in determining the right of a book to a place in the canon:

“That book is apocryphal which contains contradictions; or which contains histories, or proposes doctrines contrary to those which are known to be true; or which contains ludicrous trifling, fabulous, or silly relations; or which contains anachronisms; or wherein the style is clearly different from the known style of the author whose name it bears” (New Methods, Vol. I., p. 70).

The Rev. T. Hartwell Horne, a standard authority in the orthodox church, submits this test in determining the divinity of the Bible as a whole:

“If real contradictions exist in the Bible, it is sufficient proof that it is not divinely inspired, whatever pretenses it may make to such inspiration” (Introduction to the Scriptures, Vol. I., p. 581).

I challenge the verity of Cheever’s and Bunyan’s claims and proceed to apply to this book the tests of Jones and Horne. Instead of not containing the shadow of a shade of error, I shall show that it is so filled with the darkness of error that the truths existing in it are scarcely discernible. Instead of being the direct utterance of the Most High, I shall show that every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, is the direct utterance of man. I shall impeach the authority of the Christian canon and show that all of its books are apocryphal; that they contain histories and propose doctrines that are contrary to what is known to be true; that they contain ludicrous, trifling, fabulous, and silly relations; that they abound with anachronisms. If I have not already shown that the style of these books is clearly different from the known style of the authors whose names they bear, it is because the “known style” of these authors is a myth. I shall adduce enough real contradictions from the Bible to not only refute the claim that it is divinely inspired, but to destroy its credibility even as a human authority.

Errors of Transcribers.

If the Bible were a divine revelation, as claimed, it would have been divinely preserved. Not only the original writers, but the transcribers, translators, and printers, also, would have been divinely inspired. It is admitted that divine inspiration was confined to the original writers. Consequently the Bible, as we have it, cannot be an infallible revelation. If it be not an infallible revelation it cannot be a divine revelation.

It is popularly supposed that the books of the Bible, as originally written, have been preserved free from corruptions. That they are full of textual errors—that the books as they were originally written no longer exist and cannot be restored—is conceded even by the most orthodox of the Lower Critics. The principal causes of these corruptions are the following:

1. Clerical errors. The invention of printing made it possible to preserve the original text of a writer comparatively free from errors. With the works of ancient writers this was impossible. For a period of from 1,200 to 2,200 years preceding the invention of printing the only means of preserving the books of the Bible was the pen of the scribe. However careful the copyist might be, errors would creep into the text. But instead of being careful these copyists, many of them, were notoriously careless. This is especially evident in the case of numbers. Hundreds of errors were made in the transcription of these alone. Probably one-half of the numbers given in the Old Testament, and many in the New, are not those given in the original text, but are errors due to the carelessness of transcribers and a want of divine supervision.

2. Interpolations. There are thousands of interpolations in the Bible. A considerable portion of the words printed in Italics in our version are acknowledged interpolations. Many of them appeared first in the shape of marginal notes intended to explain or correct a statement in the text. Later scribes incorporated these into the text. And thus, while God was engaged in watching sparrows and numbering the hairs in his children’s heads, additions in this and various other ways were made to his word. In many instances whole chapters were added to the original documents.

3. Omissions. Much matter was carelessly omitted. To quote the Bible for Learners, “not only letters and words, but whole verses have fallen out.” Objectionable matter was intentionally omitted. Chrysostom tells us that entire books were destroyed by the Jews. They were on such familiar terms with the Deity that they could obtain other and more desirable ones for the asking.

4. Textual changes. In innumerable places the text has been wilfully changed to suit the religious and other notions of the priests. Let me cite an example. In early copies, and probably in the original text, Genesis xviii, 22, reads as follows: “The Lord yet stood before Abraham.” They thought it detracted from God’s dignity to stand before one of his creatures, and so they changed it to its present form, “Abraham stood yet before the Lord.”

Concerning the corruptions of the scribes, Dr. Davidson says: “They did not refrain from changing what had been written, or inserting fresh matter” (Canon, p. 34).

The facts that I have mentioned apply not merely to the Old Testament, but to the New Testament as well. Westcott, a very high authority on the canon, says: “It does not appear that any special care was taken in the first age to preserve the books of the New Testament from the various injuries of time or to insure perfect accuracy of transcription.... The original copies seem to have soon perished.”

Errors of Translators.

These errors of the transcribers have been immeasurably increased by the translators. A perfect translation is impossible, and for these reasons: 1. No language has words to express perfectly all the words of another language. 2. Languages change with time and the words of one age have a different meaning in the next. 3. Many writers do not express themselves clearly, and it is often impossible to fully comprehend their meaning. This is especially true of Bible writers. 4. No two translators will grasp the meaning of a writer in exactly the same manner, or convey it in the same words.

In regard to the Old Testament the Hebrew language, as anciently written, was the most difficult of all languages to translate. It was written from right to left; the words contained no vowels; there were no intervening spaces between the words, and no punctuation marks. Even with the introduction of vowel points many words in Hebrew, as in English, have more than one meaning. Without these points, as originally written, the number is increased a hundred fold. The five English words, bag, beg, big, bog, and bug, are quite unlike and easily distinguished. Omit the vowels, as the ancient Jews did, and we have five words exactly alike, or rather, one word with five different meanings. The Hebrew language was thus largely composed of words with several meanings. As there were no spaces between words it was sometimes hard to tell where a word began or where it ended; and as there were no punctuation marks, and no spaces between sentences, paragraphs, or even sections, it was often difficult to determine the meaning of a writer after the words had been deciphered.

Here is the best known passage in the Bible printed in English as the Jews would have written it in Hebrew:

bllwhtmcmdgnkhtmnhtbdllhnvhntrhchwrhtfR vgrfwsstbdrsvgrfdndrbldrdshtsvgnvhnstshtrnnd nkhtsnhtrflvmrfsrvldtbnttpmttntnsdldnsrtbdrn nmrvrfrlghtdnrphtdnmdg

In the printed text there is little danger of mistaking one letter for another; in the written text there is, especially if they resemble each other. The Hebrew letters corresponding to our D and R were nearly alike and easily confounded. Consequently in Numbers i, 14, we have “Eliasaph the son of Deuel,” and in Numbers ii, 14, “Eliasaph the son of Reuel.” Only God knows which is correct, and he does not care to enlighten us. Therefore we must believe that both are correct or be damned.

St. Jerome says: “When we translate the Hebrew into Latin we are sometimes guided by conjecture.” Le Clerc says: “The learned merely guess at the sense of the Old Testament in an infinity of places” (Sentim, p. 156). The Old Testament as we have it, then, consists largely of guesses and conjectures.

The title page of our Authorized Version of the Bible contains these words: “Translated out of the original tongues.” The Old Testament is declared to be a correct translation of the accepted Hebrew. In its preparation, however, the Greek more than the Hebrew version was followed. Referring to the King James translators, the historian John Clark Ridpath says: “Following the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew original, they fell into many errors which a riper scholarship would have avoided” (Cyclopedia of Universal History. Vol. II., p. 763). Instead of being a collection of original guesses and conjectures our Old Testament is, to a great extent, merely a bad English translation of a corrupted copy of a spurious Greek translation of the original (?) Hebrew.

On the title page of the Authorized Version of the New Testament appears another falsehood: “Translated out of the original Greek.” The original Greek of the New Testament, it is claimed, belongs to the first century. The “original Greek” out of which our version was translated is less than 500 years old. The Greek version from which it was translated was made by Erasmus in 1516. Referring to the materials employed by Erasmus in the preparation of his work, the Rev. Alexander Roberts, D. D., in his “Companion to the Revised Version of the English New Testament,” a work which the Committee on Revision delegated him to write and which was approved, makes the following admissions:

“In the Gospels he principally used a cursive MS. of the fifteenth or sixteenth century.”

“In the Acts and Epistles he chiefly followed a cursive MS. of the thirteenth or fourteenth century.”

“For the Apocalypse he had only one mutilated manuscript.”

“There are words in the professed original for which no divine authority can be pleaded, but which are entirely due to the learning and imagination of Erasmus.”

Little do Christians realize how much of the Bible is due to the imagination of theologians.

In view of the difficulties that I have mentioned, if the translators had earnestly tried to give us a faithful translation of the Bible their work would have teemed with imperfections. But they did not even attempt to give us a faithful translation. We know that in numerous instances they purposely mistranslated its words. A hundred examples might be cited. One will suffice—sheol.

The translators themselves ought to be the best judges of each other’s work. Of Beza’s New Testament, Castalio says: “It would require a large volume to mark down the multitude of errors which swarm in Beza’s translation.” Of Castalio’s translation, Beza says: “It is sacrilegious, wicked, and downright pagan.” Reviewing Luther’s Bible, Zwingle writes: “Thou corruptest, O Luther, the Word of God. Thou art known to be an open and notorious perverter of the Holy Scriptures.” Luther, in turn, calls the translators of Zwingle’s Bible “a set of fools, anti-Christs, and impostors.”

Our Authorized Version is certainly as faulty as any of the above, and its translators have been the recipients of as severe criticisms as those quoted. The Committee on Revision, while compelled to treat it respectfully, declared against its infallibility in the following words: “The studied variety adopted by the translators of 1611 has produced a degree of inconsistency that cannot be reconciled with the principles of faithfulness” (Preface to N. V.).

Different Versions Contain Different Books.

That the charges that I have made concerning the corruptions of the text of the Bible are true, one fact alone amply proves—its many discordant versions and translations. Hundreds have perished, all of them differing from the original and differing from each other. A hundred still exist; no two of them alike. Excepting the English versions, which are mostly revisions of the same version, scarcely two of the principal versions contain the same books.

The received Hebrew contains 39 books (22 as divided), the Samaritan 6 (some copies but 5); the Septuagint about 50. Of the Christian versions of the Old Testament, some contain the Apocryphal books, others do not. The Gothic and Ethiopic versions exclude a part of the canonical books.

The Syriac New Testament contains but 22 books; the Italic 24 (some copies 25); the Egyptian 26; the Vulgate 27. The Ethiopic omits a canonical book and includes an apocryphal book. The Sinaitic and Alexandrian manuscripts each contain 29 books. Each contains two apocryphal books, but the books are not the same.

The Roman Catholic and the Greek Catholic Bibles do not contain the same number of books. The Roman Catholic and the Protestant Bibles do not contain the same number; the Roman Catholic contains 75, the Protestant 66.