Biblical Inerrancy

Biblical Inerrancy

Thomas Allen

While some people claim that the Bible contains errors, others claim that it is error-free. Although “liberal” clergymen argue that the Bible contains errors, “conservative” clergymen argue that it does not contain any errors. This article discusses the inerrancy view of the conservative clergymen, who range from extreme literalists to adherents of broad inerrancy.

The original autographs, original manuscripts of each book of the Bible, are without error. Nevertheless, copies of the autographs have errors. However, textual critics have mostly eliminated these errors and have reconstructed the text such that it approximates the original with a high degree of accuracy.

Many proponents of the inerrancy of the Bible tend to be extreme literalists. They believe that wherever the Bible mentions history, science, geography, mathematics, etc., it is absolutely correct and without error. However, most do not go as far as considering Jesus running around heaven as a lamb as he is described in Revelation. They consider such a description as a figure of speech, a metaphor.

Yet, most extreme literalists condemn adherents of broad inerrancy for resorting to figures of speech to explain away confusing, apparently contradictory, or apparently illogical passages. (A figure of speech is an expression in which words are used in a nonliteral sense, such as simile, metaphor, personification, allegory, and  hyperbole. Figures of speech fill poetry and apocalypse.) They tend to pooh-pooh figure-of-speech arguments. Nevertheless, most of the extreme literalists resort to the figure-of-speech argument to explain away Biblical conflicts with current science — although a literal understanding of the Bible does not conflict with the science of the day that the original autograph was written. For example, in 1 Kings 7:23, the Bible states that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is three instead of 3.14 . . . . (Here, the Bible uses round numbers instead of exact numbers.) Another example is that the Bible describes the earth as geocentric, flat, immovable, and supported by columns. (Here, the Bible is using poetic language to describe the earth from the viewpoint of a person standing on the earth.) However, these explanations are in the realm of broad inerrancy and not in the realm of extreme literalist inerrancy.

Another disagreement that extreme literalists have with adherents of broad inerrancy is the writing-style explanation that adherents of broad inerrancy use. Extreme literalists claim that the writers of the Bible used the same writing style that today’s great nonfiction writers use. They wrote with exactness, precision, and accuracy instead of the way that good novelists often write — who at times sacrifice accuracy and precision with poignancy to better express a truth. According to the extreme literalists, none were like the great novelists who mix fiction with facts to express a truth clearer and better than facts alone would have expressed it. Instead, they were all like good reporters who only reported the facts with no hyperbole, no interpretation, no opinions, and minimum figures of speech.

Nevertheless, most extreme literalists do recognize parables as nonfactual stories used to express a truth. However, if a parable uses a person's name, it ceases being a nonfactual story and becomes a statement of fact — as though Jesus was incapable of varying his parables.

Also, extreme literalists object to placing words in the mouths of people who did not actually say those words, as ancient writers often did. Moreover, they seem to believe that when several writers are writing about the same event, all of them saw that event from the same perspective, which was seldom the case.

Although the original autographs are without errors, copies and translations are not. Translators have to choose among various texts, such as Textus Receptus, Westcott & Hort, Majority Text, Masoretic text, and Septuagint.

For example, some translators use the Greek text for John 6:47 that contains “on me”: “. . .  He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” Others use the Greek text that lacks “on me”: “. . . He that believeth hath eternal life.” (The former is from the King James Version, and the latter is from the American Standard Version.) Thus, the first identifies where one’s faith has to be applied to have everlasting life. According to the second, any faith guarantees everlasting life.

Another example that the choice of the Greek text affects meaning is Acts 17:26. Most translations like the King James use the Greek text that contains the word “blood”: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men. . . .” However, a few translations like the American Standard use the Greek text that omits the word “blood”: “and he made of one every nation of men. . . .” While the first supports the doctrine of the unity of man and therefore evolution, the latter does not. (For another example how a choice text can give a different impression, see “Did Jesus Lie?" by Thomas Allen.)

Moreover, when translating from Hebrew or Greek to English, translators often have a choice of words. For example, in Chapter 1 of Genesis, the Hebrew word that is commonly translated as “day” may also be translated as “age,” as Ferrar Fenton translates it. Having Genesis 1 referring to seven days gives a completely different impression than referring to seven ages.

Another example is Genesis 7:19-24. Since the King James Version describes the Noachian Flood covering the earth, most people interpret this to mean that the Flood covered the entire planet. However, the Hebrew word that the King James and other versions translate as “earth” other translations translate as “land,” “country,” or “ground.” The latter translations give the impression that the Flood was not global.

Matthew 24:3 is another example. The Greek word that the King James translates as “world” most modern translations translate as “age”: Instead of the world ending, the age ends.

In Matthew 2:11, the Greek word that the King James and other translations translate as “worshiped” some translators translate as “paid homage,” which gives a different impression. (For another example how the choice of a word can change the meaning of a text, see “Commentary on John 3:36" by Thomas Allen.)

Ferrar Fenton’s Trinitarian bias shows itself in his translation of John 1:14: “And the WORD became incarnate, and encamped among us — and we gazed upon His majesty, such majesty as that of a Father's only Son — full of beneficence and truth.” As far as I know, he is the only translator that uses “incarnate.” All other translations are similar to the King James: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

An example of deliberate mistranslation is the New King James Version’s translation of Chapter 10 of Ezra. It mistranslates this chapter to thwart its use as a proof text that God prohibits miscegenation. In Chapter 10 of Ezra, the Hebrew word that nearly all other versions translate as “foreign” (the King James uses “stranger”), the New King James translates as “pagan.” According to the New King James, the men sent their wives away because of religion: The woman worshiped false gods instead of or in addition to Yahweh. However, the man stayed even if they worshiped false gods. According to the other versions, the men sent the women away because of their race and regardless of their religion. Their race was the issue and not their religion. (In Chapter 10, the Hebrew word translated as “foreigner” refers to people of another race — see “Stranger in the Old Testament” by Thomas Allen). Consequently, the New King James creates a hypocritical double standard. Female idolists are sent away, but male idolists are not. Many of the men were practicing a false religion or else they would not have married women of a different race, because Yahweh prohibits interracial marriages (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Thus, the two different translations give entirely different impressions. For one, the separation is because of religion; for the other, it is because of race.

The Bible is error-free. However, people’s understanding is flawed, and the biases of the translators have only added to this problem. Besides, God must receive a good deal of joy watching people argue and even kill each other about what His word means, or else He would have had it written and translated with much greater clarity.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Newton on the Trinity Doctrine

Newton on the Trinity Doctrine

Thomas Allen

    After an intense study of the Bible, Isaac Newton concluded that the Trinitarian doctrine was wrong. “The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.”[1] Newton summarizes his argument in “Twelve Articles on God and Christ.”[2]
    1. 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus,”[3] and 1 Corinthians 8:6: “yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” From these verses, Newton concludes that there is only one God, who is the Father, and not a triune God, i.e., Jesus Christ was not God Himself, God absolute. [According to Colossians 1:15, Christ is the image of God.] The man Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and man. Moreover, God is everliving, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Jesus Christ is not. [See Matthew 24:36 for Christ’s lack of omniscience, which is discussed below. Also, his lack of omnipresence is discussed below.]
    2. Colossians 1:15: “who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation”; 1 Timothy 1:17: “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.”; and 1 Timothy 6:16: “who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen.” From these verses, Newton concludes that no human has ever seen God as He is invisible. Only God is immortal and eternal. Jesus was visible and died [or did only part of him die?]. [Furthermore, being “the firstborn of all creation” also conflict with the Trinity Doctrine because being the firstborn, Christ is not eternal.]
    3. John 5:26: “For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:”. From this verse, Newton concluded that only the Father, God, has life in Himself, and He gave the Son life in himself. This implies that God the Father existed before the Son. Thus, the Son is not eternal.
    4. Matthew 24:36: “But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.”; Mark 13:32: “But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” John 5:19-20: “Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and greater works than these will he show him, that ye may marvel.” Revelation 1:1: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John”; Revelation 5:3: “And no one in the heaven, or on the earth, or under the earth, was able to open the book, or to look thereon.”; Revelation 19:10: “And I fell down before his feet to worship him. And he saith unto me, See thou do it not: I am a fellow-servant with thee and with thy brethren that hold the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”; and Revelation 19:13: “And he is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God.” From these verses, Newton concludes that only the Father is omniscient; the Son lacks this divine essence (does not know the day or hour). However, the Father communicates the knowledge of the future to His Son Jesus Christ, as only he is worthy of that knowledge. Thus, “Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy and Jesus is the Word or Prophet of God.”
    5. God the Father is immovable and fills all space. All other beings, including the Son, can move from one space to another. [Acts 1:9-11 describes the resurrected Christ moving from earth to heaven with a promise that he will return from heaven to earth in the future. Thus, being able to move from one place to another, Jesus Christ cannot be omnipresent. Moreover, the “Jesus in his humanity” argument the Trinitarians like to use to explain away Jesus’ lack of knowledge and other divine traits cannot be used here because he had already shed his human shell. God’s omnipresence is discussed further below.]
    6. Moreover, all worship due to God the Father before the advent of Christ is still due to him. Christ does not and did not come to diminish the worship of his Father.
    7. Therefore, prayers should be directed to the Father in the name of the Son.
    8. 1 Timothy 6:8: “but having food and covering we shall be therewith content.” From this verse, Newton concludes that Christians should thank the Father alone for their creation and for providing them with food, raiment, and other blessings. All prayers of thanks or requests should be in the name of Christ.
    9. Moreover, Christian should not pray to Christ. Christ will intercede if Christians pray to the Father.
    10. Ephesians 5:20: “giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father.” From this verse, Newton concludes that all that is necessary for salvation is to direct prayers to the Father in the name of Christ. Praying to any other is not necessary.
    11. Calling angels and kings god does not violate the first commandment. [See John 10:34, Exodus 21:26, Deuteronomy 1:17, Psalms 58:1.] However, giving worship due God to angels, kings, or others does violate it.
    12. 1 Corinthians 8:6: “yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.”; Matthew 5:35: “nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.”; John 1:29 “On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!”; John 1:36: “and he looked upon Jesus as he walked, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God!”; and Revelation 5:9-10: “And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign upon the earth.” From these verses, Newton concludes that there is but one God, who is the Father. Christians “are to worship the Father alone God Almighty and Jesus alone as the Lord the Messiah the great King the Lamb of God who was slain and hath redeemed us with his blood and made us kings and Priests.”
    Newton summarized his belief as follows:

And we are to believe in one God, the father, almighty in dominion, the maker of heaven & earth & of all things therein; & in one Lord Jesus Christ the son of God, who was born of a Virgin, &; sacrificed for us on the cross, &; the third day rose again from the dead, & ascended into heaven, & sitteth on the right hand of God in a mystical sense, being next unto him in honour & power.[4]

    Moreover, Newton believed “that there is one everliving omnipresent omnipotent (invisible) God the creator of heaven & earth & (of), all things therein . . . [and] therefore to acknowledge . . . one God infinite eternal omnipresent, omniscient & omnipotent (. . . the creator of all things most wise, most just, most good most holy;) & to have no other Gods but him.”[5]
    Newton also notes that in several places Christ confesses his dependence on the will of the Father. He also confesses that he himself is less than the Father and the Father is greater than he and calls the Father his God. [According to John 5:19, 30; 10: 29; 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28, the Son is subordinate to the Father. In John 14: 28, Jesus even admits that the Father is greater than he is: “for the Father is greater than I.” Thus, this conflicts with the Trinity Doctrine that the Father and Son are equal. It also leads to the question if the Father is the God of the Son, then who is the God of the Father? Also, how can God have a God?] Moreover, the Son confesses that only the Father has knowledge of all future events (Matthew 24:36).
    Furthermore, Newton contends that “word” (“logos”) as used in Chapter 1 of John should be understood in its ordinary, everyday use and not in the mystical way Trinitarians explain it. John was trying to avoid Jesus being seen as a mere man or as the supreme God. John attempted to avoid these extremes by referring to him as the “word.” He intended that “word” be understood in its ordinary, everyday use. When John wrote, “word” was used in the sense of the Platonists [that which is spoken] when applied to intelligent beings.
    Moreover, Newton does not believe that Jesus had a human soul as such. He finds no evidence or mention in the Scriptures of him having a human soul. He was the word incarnated, and by the word itself, he was made flesh and took on himself the form of a servant.
    Also, only the Father is God almighty. However, this does not limit the power of the Son, who does whatever he sees the Father doing. Nonetheless, all power is originally in the Father, and the Son has no power in himself; he derives his power from the Father, for the Son professes that he can do nothing of himself (John 5:19). [The Son’s admission that he is inferior to the Father conflicts with the Trinity Doctrine of three coequals.]
    Moreover, in all things the Son submits his will to the will of the Father. Such submission argues against the Trinity Doctrine of the Son being equal to the Father. [How could and why would an equal submit to an equal?]
    The union between the Son and the Father, Newton understands to be like that of the saints with one another. It is in agreement of will and counsel. It is a unity of purpose.
    Newton believes that “God is one not only in essence (as in Trinitarian Theology) but also in person.”[6] God is the Father; the Father is God. The two words are synonymous.
    Newton declares that there is only one God, who is the God of the Patriarchs and the Christians. He is the father who has life in Himself and who has given the Son to have life in himself. Moreover, the Father is the author of life to all intelligent beings, the Almighty (universal monarch, that is, the supreme and universal governor of the Universe), the maker of heaven and earth and of all things therein visible and invisible.
    As for Christ, Newton declares that he is Lord, who has received life from the Father and who was slain for us, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. To express his being next to the father in dignity and dominion, he sits at the right hand of God the Father. Christ will come again to judge and reign over those who remain alive in the flesh and the dead whom he will raise again to life and reward according to their works at his coming. He will establish his kingdom, for he must reign till he had put all things under his feet, the last of which is death.
    “For Newton, the unity Christ shared with the Father was moral rather than essential.”[7] Nevertheless, although Christ is not very God in the Nicene sense, “Christ is divine in origin (literally the Son of God) and that he pre-existed his birth by Mary.”[8]
    Newton believes that the Father alone is the invisible God of the Bible. God is the first cause and consequently eternal and omnipresent. Thus, He is always invisible, present at all times and in all places, and knows everything that everyone does, says, or thinks. Being everywhere at once, He does not move from place to place. He is void of external shape or bounds, intangible, and invisible, whom no human has ever seen. “Because God is by nature invisible, Trinitarian theologians were wrong to discuss God’s substance.”[9]
    Unlike God, who is always invisible, Christ was visible and will be visible again. Newton writes, “The son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the father do John 5.19. The father judgeth no man [visibly] but hath committed all judgment unto the son, that all men should honour the [visible] Son even as they honour the [invisible] father, John 5:22,23.”[10] Thus, he distinguishes between the invisible Father and the visible Son. [If the Father and Son are of the same substance as the Trinity Doctrine claims, then no such distinction should exist.]
    According to John 5:26 (“For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:”), the Father has life in Himself, but the Son does not; he gets his life from the Father. Thus, the Son is subordinate to the Father. Newton concludes that the God of the Patriarchs and the Christians is the Father who has life in Himself, and He has given to the Son to have life in himself.
    Being omnipresent, God is everywhere at once throughout space and time. About space, Newton writes:

Absolute space, of its own nature without reference to anything external, always remains homogeneous and immovable. Relative space is any movable measure or dimension of this absolute space; such a measure or dimension is determined by our senses from the situation of the space with respect to bodies and is popularly used for immovable space, as in the case of space under the earth or in the air or in the heavens, where the dimension is determined from the situation of the space with respect to the earth.[11]

Thus, God, being immovable, is coextensive with immovable absolute space. “Just as relative space is measured against the benchmark of absolute space, so all changing creation (of which Christ is a part) is distinguished from the immutable God.”[12] [Being omnipresent, God is everywhere simultaneously. He surrounds every atom and fills all voids between and in every atom. Moreover, he fills all the electrons, protons, and all other parts of every atom.] Therefore, God is absolute and Christ is relative. [This is another conflict with the Trinity Doctrine.]
    Newton holds that Christ should not be worshiped as God. Christ should be worshiped, but not the point of distracting from the proper worship due God the Father Almighty; to do so violates the First Commandment (1 Corinthians 8:5-6). Christ should be worshiped, not as God Almighty, but as a king of kings and lord of lords, who has redeemed his elect with his blood. Thus, God is to be worshiped as God and Christ as Lord.
    Newton notes that the term “God” is occasionally applied to angels and Israelite kings in the Bible as an honorific title. However, bearing the title God does not grant them the privilege of receiving the worship due to God alone. According to Newton, the term “God” is relative in nature. It obtains its meaning not from essence, as in the Trinitarian Doctrine, but from dominion. He explains:

[God] rules all things, not as the world soul but as the lord of all. And because of his dominion he is called Lord God Pantokrator [i.e., Almighty]. For “god” is a relative word and has reference to servants, and godhood is the lordship of God, not over his own body as is supposed by those for whom God is the world soul, but over servants. . . . And in this sense princes are called gods, Psalms 82.6 and John 10.35. And Moses is called a god of his brother Aaron and a god of king Pharaoh (Exod. 4.16 and 7.1). And in the same sense the souls of dead princes were formerly called gods by the heathen, but wrongly because of their lack of dominion.[13]

    1 Corinthians 8:6 (“yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.”) distinguishes a separation not only between Father and Son but also between God and Christ.
    In summary, Newton believed there is one God the Father, who is everliving, omnipresent, omniscient, and almighty and who is the maker of heaven and earth, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. The Father is the invisible God, whom no eye has seen or can see; all other beings are visible. The Father has life in Himself and has given the Son to have life in himself. Moreover, the Father is omniscient and has all knowledge of future things originally in His own breast. He communicates knowledge of future things to Jesus Christ, for none in heaven or earth or under the earth is worthy to receive knowledge of future things immediately from the Father except the Lamb. Therefore, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, and Jesus is the Word or Prophet of God. Furthermore, the Father is immovable, and no place can become emptier or fuller of Him than it is by the eternal necessity of nature. Prayers are most prevalent when directed to the Father in the name of the Son, and Christians are to give thanks to Father alone. Moreover, whatever Christians are to thank God for or to desire that He would give them, they should ask of Him immediately in the name of Christ. Also, Christians need not pray to Christ to intercede for them; if they pray to the Father correctly, Christ will intercede. Furthermore, it is not necessary for salvation for Christians to direct their prayers to any other than the Father in the name of the Son. For the Christian, there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things (1 Corinthians 8:6). Christians are to worship the Father alone as God Almighty and Jesus alone as the Lord, the Messiah, the King, and the Lamb of God (1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:5-6, Matthew 5:35 and John 1:29,36). Jesus is the Lamb who was slain and has redeemed Christians with his blood and made them kings and priests.
    [For more details on the above discussion, see Endnote 4.]

Endnote
1. Matt Perman, “What Is the Doctrine of the Trinity?”, January 23, 2006, http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity, downloaded July 29, 2017.

2. “Isaac Newton’s Twelve Articles on God and Christ c. 1710s-1720s,” Keynes Ms 8, King’s College, Cambridge, https://newtonprojectca.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/english-kms8-with-verses.pdf, downloaded July 29, 2017.

3. Quotes from the Bible are from the American Standard Version, which some theologians consider the best translation of the New Testament.

4. Stephen D. Snobelen, “Commentary on Isaac Newton’s Twelve Articles on God and Christ,” https://newtonprojectca.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/english-kms8-commentary.pdf, downloaded July 29, 2017.

5.  Ibid.

6.  Ibid.

7.  Ibid.

8.  Ibid.

9.  Ibid.

10.  Ibid.

11.  Ibid.

12.  Ibid.

13. Ibid.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on religion.

Mencken on the Eternal Christian Mob

Mencken on the Eternal Christian Mob

Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes the eternal Christian mob, pages 74-76. Below is an overview of his discussion on the eternal Christian mob; my comments are in brackets.
    Mencken notes that in the past two thousand years, the inferior man has moved “from the obscenities of the Saturnalia to the obscenities of the Methodist revival. So he lives out his life in the image of Jahveh.”
    Mencken questions the inferior man’s “simple piety, his touching fidelity to the faith.” He continues, “Is it argued by any rational man that the debased Christianity cherished by the mob in all the Christian countries of to-day has any colourable likeness to the body of ideas preached by Christ? . . . The plain fact is that this bogus Christianity has no more relation to the system of Christ than it has to the system of Aristotle. It is the invention of Paul and his attendant rabble-rousers — a body of men exactly comparable to the corps of evangelical pastors of to-day, which is to say, a body devoid of sense and lamentably indifferent to common honesty.” [Paul did not change the teachings of Christ; he merely explained and applied them.] Then he adds, “The mob, having heard Christ, turned against Him, and applauded His crucifixion.” The mob turned against Christ because “His theological ideas were too logical and too plausible for it, and his ethical ideas were enormously too austere.” [The mob did not turn against Jesus because his theological ideas were too logical and too plausible. It turned against him because the Pharisees and the Sadducees excited it to demand the execution of Jesus. These two groups and, to a lesser extent, the Herodians were the aristocrats and superior men of their society. Thus, the superior men were behind Jesus’ execution. They turned the mob against Jesus because his logical, plausible theology condemned them.]
    What the mob “yearned for was the old comfortable balderdash under a new and gaudy name, and that is precisely what Paul offered it. He borrowed from all the wandering dervishes and soul-snatchers of Asia Minor, and flavoured the stew with remnants of the Greek demonology. The result was a code of doctrines so discordant and so nonsensical that no two men since, examining it at length, have ever agreed upon its precise meaning.” [Paul’s teachings are no more confusing than Jesus’. What makes Paul’s writings seem confusing are theologians reading into his writings what is not there and reading out of his writings what is there. Moreover, if his writings are so confusing and, thus, difficult to understand, why does the ignorant, uneducable inferior man seems to grasp them, for as Mencken notes, the inferior man tries to destroy what he does not understand. Nevertheless, Paul’s writings, which are usually fairly straightforward, are easier to comprehend than most of the Prophets and Revelations with their flowery, allegorical, and metaphorical language. Furthermore, Jesus’ teaching may not be as logical and plausible and as clear and simple as Mencken asserts. If they were, theologians agree about what Jesus taught. For example, in Matthew 24:36, Christ says that he does not possess the divine trait of omniscience. Antitrinitarians use this statement to prove that the Trinity Doctrine is wrong. Trinitarians ignore it or try to explain it away. Another is Matthew 24:1-31. Some claim that this prophecy of Jesus was fulfilled in 70 A.D. Others claim that only part of it was fulfilled in 70 A.D.; the remainder is yet to come. Thus, Jesus’ teachings are at least as confusing as Paul’s.] Nonetheless, “Paul knew his mob: he had been a travelling labour leader. He knew that nonsense was its natural provender — that the unintelligible soothed it like sweet music.” Moreover, Paul was the progenitor “of all the Christian mob-masters of to-day, terrorizing and enchanting the mob with their insane damnations, eating their seven fried chickens a week, passing the diligent plate, busy among the women.” [Many ministers in Mencken’s day, and even today, were charlatans, hustlers, and scoundrels, who manipulated Christians for their own benefit. That Paul was such a person is highly doubtful, and such a notion is certainly not supported by the Scriptures. No such person would have endured what Paul endured.]
    Continuing, Mencken writes, “Once the early church emerged from the Roman catacombs and began to yield to that reorganization of society which was forced upon the ancient world by the barbarian invasions, Paul was thrown overboard, as Methodists throw Wesley overboard when they acquire the means and leisure for golf, and Peter was put in his place. Peter was a blackguard, but he was at least free from any taint of Little Bethel. The Roman Church, in the aristocratic feudal age, promoted him post mortem to the Papacy, and then raised him to the mystical dignity of Rock, a rank obviously quasi-celestial.” [The theology of the Catholic Church fits much closer the animadversions that Mencken pours on Paul than Paul’s theology.]
    Nevertheless, “Paul remained the prophet of the sewers. He was to emerge centuries later in many incarnations — Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and so on. He remains to-day the arch-theologian of the mob. His turgid and witless metaphysics make Christianity bearable to men who would be repelled by Christ’s simple and magnificent reduction of the duties of man to the duties of a gentleman.” [Mencken is not the only one who believes that Paul corrupted the teachings of Jesus. Some have accused Paul of Judaizing the teachings of Christ, which he did not.]
    [As can be seen from the above, Mencken has a low opinion of Christianity. On that point, he agrees with Marx. Moreover, Mencken seems to believe that only inferior men, scoundrels, and demagogues are religious, and the scoundrels and demagogues are fakers, who use religion to manipulate the inferior man. He seems to believe that one cannot be both religious and of the better sort simultaneously.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.