Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1873-02-07
Let Him Produce It."

ty in identifying, and which was design
ed to be kcenly, almost savagely, sar
castle upon the papers Of this city for tht
manner ard matter of their opposition to
the repeal of the present law for the pun
ishment of murder in Iowa, we used in
closing, the following language:
We do not propose to be drawn into a
controversy upon the scriptural aspects
of the question under discussion, but at
the risk of again disturbing the eqnanim-
ity Of the correspondent of the Conserea-
tine, we affirm that not only is the taking
of life for crime repugnant to the spirit
and teachings of the religion of the Bible,
but that the one text upon which the
advocates of the death penalty rest the
burden of their argument for its divine
appointment is in the original, obscure,
and il by some ofthe best Hebrew scholars
in this country interpreted so as to con
vcy an entirely different meaning from
that attached to it by the advocates aforc-
said.
| We did not suppose that in the above
declaration respecting conflicting inter
probation, We were stating anything new
to gentlemen whose peculiar province it
is to give exhaustive study to the scrip
lures and the commentaries upon them.
The last thing we anticipated was an issue
of fact en- that question. But it seems
we oycrratcd the studous habits oftwo of
the cloth, and by their implication all the
others, residing in this city. The next
| issue of The ConSeYrat &c was loaded to
the muzzlc with double headed clerical
bombshcll, the vicious purpose of which
| was to oycrwhelm the 'cditor who had
the hardihood to assert that the taking
of life for crime was repugnant to the
teachings of the religion OF the Bible
meaning lis. Although we did not, in
the article which provoked this combised
assault, designate the particular text up
on which, as alleged the scriptural advo-
! cafes of the death penalty hang their
whole argument, our brace Of clerical as
sailants virtually admitted at the outset
| that there is but one, by assuming that
we meant Genesis IN: 6: "Whoso shed
deth mans blood, by man shall his blood
be shed;' and they were right. Then
follows request which we propose to
comply with at this time 1t is as fol
lows:
"The clcrgymen Of this place (two OF
whom do not hesitate to speak for the
rest) will be greatly obliged to the editor
of the Bulletin, if he will give them, not
the names of "somc of the best Hebrew
scholars in the country" but the name of
one respectable Hebrew scholar in any
country, who says there is anything OBJ
scure in the original ofthc passage qnoted
and ifhe will furthermore give them, word
for word, the translation which has been
made of this passage, by such scholar
and which conveys San entirely different
meaning from that attached to it by the
advocates aforesaid
The same demand, accompanledby very
positive and contemptuous expressions o
our inability to comply with it, is injected
at various points into the column and 4
half of laborcd logic which forms the bulk
Of the article.
| We are asked to name one authority tC
| prove that the passage quoted is obscure
or capable of different interpretations
| We will be generous and name a dozen,
| There are no less than t,eelre different
rendcrings of the text "Whoso sheddcth
&c" any one of which is entitled to rs
much weight as the version authorized by
King James y good many years ago
The first witness we call will hardly bt
sneered at by our clerical friends. His
name is John Calvin, and he says that tc
render the passage "6y man is ''forceC
construction" The Scptuagint omitf
the words cog man. as also do Wicklifie
the Tulgate and the Samaritan version
| The Latin version renders it "Whosf
shcdd eth human blood, his blood aciH b
she'd" Martins Italian version is sim
|
Cahen and the French versions all differ
| LIE Clcrc says that the translation, "b5
man" should be rendered, "among men.
| This will suffice to demonstrate the fact
! that "one respectable Hebrew scholar il
ann country" does hold opinions contrary
! to those of our brace of clerical antagon
lists. But we go further and make gooc
! our assertion that Hebrew scholars in
this country differ concerning the inter
! probation of the text in controversy. Vi
course the fact of such difference proves
| it obscure. We bring to the stand Prof
! S. G. Upham, of Bowdoin College, whose
orthodoxy or pre- cminence as Hebrew
scholar will not be questioned by any in
telligent person Prof tpham says that
the passage may be read: "Whoso shed
deth mans blood, by man niH his blood
| be shed" and further, remarks: I'VE re
gard it rs merely expressive of great
retributive fact in nature, and in the
everything providence Of God, that he
who wickedly takes human life shall as
suredly, in some way or another, meet
with severe punishment, and will proba
bly, come to violent end" This conclu
sion is eminently sound and sensible. l!
is the assertion of n truth which has its
confirmation every day in the affairs OF
life, that violence breeds violence, and
blood, blood Another indication OF the
Interpretation put upon the text by tres
pectable" scholars may be found at the
close of an article on Mary Queen OF
Scots, in Harpers Magazine for February
by Lyman Abbott, where it is spoken OF
rs n prophecy The term used is signifi'
cant. Having thus acccded to the Geris
i've request of our clerical antagonists
and made good our statement in the first
article, we do not propose, as we have
before intimated, to enter Il long and
tedious discussion upon the merits of the
Bible argument.
We beg pardon of our readers for Oc
cupying so much space in this matter
but having been charged with sweep
ing" "iDdefrnsih,en and strcckleSS" state