The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce, Volume 10: The OpinionatorBierce, Ambrose
General
The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce, Volume 10: The Opinionator
Bierce, Ambrose
American essays; American literature
What Ingersoll attacked was the Bible as we have it—the English
Bible—not the Bible as it may, can, must, might, would or should be in
Hebrew and Greek. He had no controversy with scholars—not only knew
himself unable to meet them on their own ground (where is plenty of
room for their lonely feet) but was not at all concerned with their
faiths and convictions, nor with the bases of them. Hoping to remove or
weaken a few popular errors, he naturally examined the book in which he
believed them to be found—the book which has the assent and acceptance
of those who hold them and derive them from it. He did not go behind
the record as it reads—nobody does excepting its advocates when it
has been successfully impugned. What has influenced (mischievously,
Ingersoll believed) the thought and character of the Anglo-Saxon race
is not the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Testament, but the English
Bible. The fidelity of that to its originals, its self-sufficiency and
independence of such evidences as only scholarship can bring to its
exposition, these, as Aristotle would say, are matters for separate
consideration. If God has really chosen to give his law to his children
in tongues that only an infinitesimal fraction of them can hope to
understand—has thrown it down amongst them for ignorant translators to
misread, interested priesthoods to falsify and hardy and imaginative
commentators to make ridiculous—has made no provision against all this
debauching of the text and the spirit of it, this must be because he
preferred it so; for whatever occurs must occur because the Omniscience
and Omnipotence permitting it wishes it to occur. Such are not the
methods of our human legislators, who take the utmost care that the
laws be unambiguous, printed in the language of those who are required
to obey them and accessible to them in the original text. I’m not
saying that this is the better and more sensible way; I only say that
if the former is God’s way the fact relieves us all of any obligation
to “restore” the text before discussing it and to illuminate its
obscurities with the side-lights of erudition. Ingersoll had all the
scholarship needful to his work: he knew the meaning of English words.
Says the complacent simpleton again:
It was idle for a man to deny the existence of God who confessed
and proclaimed the principle of fraternity.... The hard conception
of annihilation had no place in sentences that were infused with
the heat of immortality.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account