Murder Will Out by George Carter Stent 1878

MURDER WILL OUT by George Carter Stent 1878

Join my Facebook Group

See also True Crime + Mystery Fiction - 500 Books on 2 DVDroms 

Not a long time ago there occurred in Peking
What most will pronounce a remarkable thing!
I'll relate it: for really it proves beyond doubt
The truth of the saying, that "murder will out."

After waiting all day without getting a fare,
A carter was going off home in despair,
When an old fellow hailed him, and bidding him wait,
Climbed into his cart near the Victory Gate.

"Please, Sir," asked the carter, "which way shall I drive?"
"To the south," cried the old man; "now, then, look alive!"
He did look alive, and 'twas pleasant to see
How cheerful the poor carter now seemed to be.

The old mule indulged in a long swinging trot,
But she suddenly stopped in a dark, lonely spot.
This the carter imputed to mischief or spite,
But the mule knew much better-'twas out of sheer fright.

"This is strange," said the man; "what the deuce is amiss?
The old mule has never before been like this."
Coaxing, swearing, and flogging, he each in turn tried;
But the mule stood, as if all her legs had been tied.

"You had better get out," cried the carter, much chafed.
His fare remained still, and no answer vouchsafed.
"Get out! Are ye deaf?"-here he turned round his head,
And perceived that the old man had fallen back-dead.

This, then, was the reason the mule wouldn't go:
Her instinct had told her a corpse was de trop.
For the very same reason for which the mule stopped,
The carter would gladly have run till he dropped.

In a cold perspiration and trembling with fear,
The carter remembered a watch-house was near.
He shouted aloud, till he made himself hoarse,
But the watch were asleep-as a matter of course.

The carter, himself, to the watch-house now ran,
And brought back two watchmen to guard the dead man,
While he hastened off and reported the case,
And conducted the magistrate back to the place.

The corpse was now placed by the side of the road;
And the mule, thus relieved from her horrible load,
Got over her fright and dashed off in a trot,
Growing bolder the farther she got from the spot.

The magistrate said, when he heard the man's tale,
He would go at the first break of dawn, without fail;
He was too busy now-besides, 'twas too late;
And as for the watchmen and corpse-they must wait.

The two men, meanwhile, sat there watching the dead,
And the time dragged its way slowly on;
It grew darker and darker; the clouds overhead
Portended a storm;-they were both filled with dread
What a long time the carter seemed gone!

The cold air of night struck a chill to their bones;
They trembled with cold and with fear;
The wind wailed a dirge, too, in sad plaintive tones,
And, in fancy, they heard quite a chorus of groans
From a graveyard, alas! much too near.

'Twas midnight; the body lay quiet and still;-
On the whole, that was "so far so good;"
His presence, alone made the two men feel chill,-
They shivered-they would have a fire, come what will;
So they went off to gather some wood.

They returned, made a fire with the wood they had found,
And sat in its warm, ruddy glare;
When one of the watchmen by chance looking round,
Gave a cry of dismay, and sprang up from the ground-
The corpse of the man wasn't there!

Yes, while they were busy in gathering sticks,
The corpse had been up to some outlandish tricks.
It had gone; and the watchmen were now in a fix!
   When the magistrate heard of the case,
Though they told him the truth, he'd declare 'twas a lie.
"I've got it!" quoth one; "suppose you and I
Steal a fresh-coffined corpse from the graveyard close by,
And substitute that in his place!"

Off they started at once, "for they'd no time to waste,-
Broke open a new-looking coffin in haste,
And took out the corpse, which they carefully placed
On the ground where the other had been.
This done, they sat down without saying a word,
Surprised and astonished at what had occurred;
There they sat by the fire then, and never once stirred,
Till the magistrate came on the scene.

 But, oh! who can picture the scene which took place,
When the magistrate bade them uncover the face-
At seeing a maiden scarce eighteen years old!
The sight made the blood of the stoutest run cold.

For round her white neck was a dark streak of blue-
A sign she'd been strangled; her arms were bruised too,
As if she had struggled but been overpowered
By one who was murderer, ruffian, and coward.

This horrible sight, it is needless to say,
Filled the two watchmen with dread and dismay,
And, thinking for once the bare truth would be best,
Each, without hesitation, soon made a clean breast.

His Worship, believing their tale to be true,
Conceived he had now got one end of a clue;
This he traced with such consummate skill, that at last
He knew, and had got, the girl's murderer fast.

It seems, the girl's father-his wife being dead-
Had recently taken it into his head
To purchase another, his old age to cheer-
Little dreaming his purchase would cost him so dear.

The person by whom his new wife had been sold
Was her husband-although the old man had been told
They were brother and sister, and, as such was the case,
No harm could ensue should he visit the place.

 He came at all hours, when the merchant was out;
Yet the old man was free from suspicion or doubt.
But not so the girl, she detected their plan,
And watched them, unheeding the risk that she ran.

Her father soon after left home for a week,
And the two now determined their vengeance to wreak
On her who had seen through their villainous schemes:
They strangled the girl, spite of struggles and screams.

All signs of the murderous deed were effaced,
And the corpse of the girl in a coffin was placed;
This was put in the graveyard, and now the vile pair
Feeling safe from suspicion, went home free from care.

On the father's return he was told by his wife
That his daughter had died of a fever then rife.
This the wife told with tears, and the father, though grieved,
The base woman's plausible story believed.

The murderers met with the fate they deserved;
They had strangled the girl-they themselves were thus served.
Thus strangely was brought a vile murder to light,
Through the trance of a man and a stubborn mule's fright.

 This story is done; it remains but to tell,
That the old fellow soon turned up, hearty and well;
He was subject to fits, and while in one of those,
The old mule had jibbed-hence the blunder arose.

While the watchmen were absent collecting the wood,
The old man had roused, and at once understood
That the carter had left him there, thinking him dead.
He knew better, and getting up, trudged home to bed.

The finger of Heaven we distinctly can trace
From beginning to end of this singular case;
Each actor and act, one can see, too, quite plain,'
Were but separate links in His wonderful chain.

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

Intelligence and Socialism by Gustave Le Bon 1899

Download this book for a limited time here

Intelligence and Socialism by Gustave Le Bon 1899

Join my Facebook Group

See also Over 300 PDF/Acrobat Books on Socialism, Communism and Economics and 300 Books on DVDrom for Libertarians, Objectivists and Voluntaryists and The History & Mystery of Money & Economics-250 Books on DVDrom

Gustave Le Bon was a French social psychologist, sociologist, anthropologist, inventor, and amateur physicist. He is best known for his 1895 work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. His writings incorporate theories of national traits, racial and male superiority, herd behavior and crowd psychology.

Practically the Socialists recognise but two sources of wealth—capital and labour, and all their demands are directed against the part, according to them too great, which is assumed by capital. Being unable to deny the necessity of capital in modern industry, they dream of the suppression of the capitalists.

But besides capital and labour there is a third source of wealth—intelligence, which the Socialists usually consider to be of but little value. None the less its action is predominating, and for this reason we shall commence our investigation with a consideration of its functions.

In the dawn of civilisation intellectual capacity played a part scarcely superior to that of manual labour, but with the progress of industry and the sciences its part finally became so preponderant that its importance cannot now be exaggerated. The toil of the obscure labourer is of profit only to himself, while the works of intelligence enrich the whole of humanity. A Socialist recently assured the Chamber of Deputies that "there are no such men as are in human reality the human equivalent of a hundred thousand men." It is easy to reply to him that in less than a century we can cite, from Stephenson to Pasteur, a whole aristocracy of inventors, each one of which is worth far more than a hundred thousand men, not only by the theoretical value of his discoveries, but by reason of the wealth which his inventions have poured into the world, and the benefits which every worker has derived from them. If on the last Day of Judgment the works of men are weighed at their true worth, how immense will prove the weight of the works of these mighty geniuses! It is to them, thanks to their discoveries, that is due the greater part of the capital existing in the world. The English economist Mallock has reckoned that one-third of the present revenue of England may be imputed to the capacity of a small elite, which by itself produces far more than all the rest of the population.

The Socialists of every school are loathe to admit the importance of intellectual superiority. Their high priest Marx understands by the term work nothing but manual labour, and relegates the spirit of invention, capacity, and direction, which has nevertheless transformed the world, to a second place.

This hatred of intelligence on the part of the Socialists is well founded, for it is precisely this intelligence that will prove the eternal obstacle on which all their ideas of equality will shatter themselves. Let us suppose that by a measure analogous to the Edict of Nantes—a measure which the Socialists, were they the masters, would very soon be driven to enforce—all the intellectual superiority of Europe—all the scientists, artists, great manufacturers, inventors, skilled workmen, and so forth, were expelled from civilised countries, and obliged to take refuge in a narrow territory at present almost uninhabited—Iceland, for example. Let us further suppose that they departed without a halfpenny of capital. It is nevertheless impossible to doubt that this country, barren as it is supposed to be, would soon quickly become the first country in the world for civilisation and wealth. This wealth would soon be such that the exiles would be able to maintain a powerful army of mercenaries, and would have nothing to fear from any side. I do not think that such a hypothesis is altogether impossible of realisation in the future.

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

Is Suicide a Sin? by Robert Green Ingersoll 1880

Buy-History of Suicide: Voluntary Death in Western Culture (Medicine and Culture)

Is Suicide a Sin? by Robert Green Ingersoll 1880

Join my Facebook Group

See also Suicide and Philosophy - 50 Books on CDrom

I do not know whether self-killing is on the increase or not. If it is, then there must be, on the average, more trouble, more sorrow, more failure, and, consequently, more people are driven to despair. In civilized life there is a great struggle, great competition, and many fall. To fail in a great city is like being wrecked at sea. In the country a man has friends. He can get a little credit, a little help, but in the city it is different. The man is lost in the multitude. In the roar of the streets his cry is not heard. Death becomes his only friend. Death promises release from want, from hunger and pain, and so the poor wretch lays down his burden, dashes it from his shoulders and falls asleep.

To me all this seems very natural. The wonder is that so many endure and suffer to the natural end, that so many nurse the spark of life in huts and prisons, keep it and guard it through years of misery and want; support it by beggary; by eating the crust found in the gutter, and to whom it only gives days of weariness and nights of fear and dread. Why should the man, sitting amid the wreck of all he had, the loved ones dead, friends lost, seek to lengthen, to preserve his life? What can the future have for him?

Under many circumstances a man has the right to kill himself. When life is of no value to him, when he can be of no real assistance to others, why should a man continue? When he is of no benefit, when he is a burden to those he loves, why should he remain? The old idea was that "God" made us and placed us here for a purpose, and that it was our duty to remain until He called us. The world is outgrowing this absurdity. What pleasure can it give "God" to see a man devoured by a cancer? To see the quivering flesh slowly eaten? To see the nerves throbbing with pain? Is this a festival for "God"? Why should the poor wretch stay and suffer? A little morphine would give him sleep—the agony would be forgotten and he would pass unconsciously from happy dreams to painless death.

If "God" determines all births and deaths, of what use is medicine, and why should doctors defy, with pills and powders, the decrees of "God"? No one, except a few insane, act now according to this childish superstition. Why should a man, surrounded by flames, in the midst of a burning building, from which there is no escape, hesitate to put a bullet through his brain or a dagger in his heart? Would it give "God" pleasure to see him burn? When did the man lose the right of self-defense?

So, when a man has committed some awful crime, why should he stay and ruin his family and friends? Why should he add to the injury? Why should he live, filling his days and nights, and the days and nights of others, with grief and pain, with agony and tears?

Why should a man sentenced to imprisonment for life hesitate to still his heart? The grave is better than the cell. Sleep is sweeter than the ache of toil. The dead have no masters.

So the poor girl, betrayed and deserted, the door of home closed against her, the faces of friends averted, no hand that will help, no eye that will soften with pity, the future an abyss filled with monstrous shapes of dread and fear, her mind racked by fragments of thoughts like clouds broken by storm, pursued, surrounded by the serpents of remorse, flying from horrors too great to bear, rushes with joy through the welcome door of death.

Undoubtedly there are many cases of perfectly justifiable suicide—cases in which not to end life would be a mistake, sometimes almost a crime.

As to the necessity of death, each must decide for himself. And if a man honestly decides that death is best—best for him and others—and acts upon the decision, why should he be blamed?

Certainly the man who kills himself is not a physical coward. He may have lacked moral courage, but not physical. It may be said that some men fight duels because they are afraid to decline. They are between two fires—the chance of death and the certainty of dishonor, and they take the chance of death. So the Christian martyrs were, according to their belief, between two fires—the flames of the fagot that could burn but for a few moments and the fires of God, that were eternal. And they chose the flames of the fagot.

Men who fear death to that degree that they will bear all the pains and pangs that nerves can feel rather than die, cannot afford to call the suicide a coward. It does not seem to me that Brutus was a coward or that Seneca was. Surely Anthony had nothing left to live for. Cato was not a craven. He acted on his judgment. So with hundreds of others who felt that they had reached the end—that the journey was done, the voyage was over, and, so feeling, stopped. It seems certain that the man who commits suicide, who "does the thing that stops all other deeds, that shackles accident and bolts up change," is not lacking in physical courage.

If men had the courage they would not linger in prisons, in almshouses, in hospitals, they would not bear the pangs of incurable disease, the stains of dishonor, they would not live in filth and want, in poverty and hunger, neither would they wear the chain of slavery. All this can be accounted for only by the fear of death or "of something after."

Seneca, knowing that Nero intended to take his life, had no fear. He knew that he could defeat the Emperor. He knew that "at the bottom of every river, in the coil of every rope, on the point of every dagger, Liberty sat and smiled." He knew that it was his own fault if he allowed himself to be tortured to death by his enemy. He said, "There is this blessing, that while life has but one entrance, it has exits innumerable, and as I choose the house in which I live, the ship in which I will sail, so will I choose the time and manner of my death." To me this is not cowardly, but manly and noble.

Under the Roman law persons found guilty, of certain offenses were not only destroyed, but their blood was polluted, and their children became outcasts. If, however, they died before conviction, their children were saved. Many committed suicide to save their babes. Certainly they were not cowards. Although guilty of great crimes, they had enough of honor, of manhood, left to save their innocent children. This was not cowardice.

Without doubt many suicides are caused by insanity. Men lose their property. The fear of the future over powers them. Things lose proportion, they lose poise and balance, and in a flash, a gleam of frenzy, kill their selves. The disappointed in love, broken in heart—the light fading from their lives—seek the refuge of death. Those who take their lives in painful, barbarous ways—who mangle their throats with broken glass, dash themselves from towers and roofs, take poisons that torture like the rack—such persons must be insane. But those who take the facts into account, who weigh the arguments for and against, and who decide that death is best—the only good—and then resort to reasonable means, may be, so far as I can see, in full possession of their minds.

Life is not the same to all—to some a blessing, to some a curse, to some not much in any way. Some leave it with unspeakable regret, some with the keenest joy, and some with indifference.

Religion, or the decadence of religion, has a bearing upon the number of suicides. The fear of "God," of judgment, of eternal pain will stay the hand, and people so believing will suffer here until relieved by natural death. A belief in the eternal agony beyond the grave will cause such believers to suffer the pangs of this life. When there is no fear of the future, when death is believed to be a dreamless sleep, men have less hesitation about ending their lives. On the other hand, orthodox religion has driven millions to insanity. It has caused parents to murder their children and many thousands to destroy themselves and others.

It seems probable that all real, genuine orthodox believers who kill themselves must be insane, and to such a degree that their belief is forgotten, "God" and hell are out of their minds. I am satisfied that many who commit suicide are insane, many are in the twilight or dusk of insanity, and many are perfectly sane.

The law we have in this State making it a crime to attempt suicide is cruel and absurd and calculated to increase the number of successful suicides. When a man has suffered so much, when he has been so persecuted and pursued by disaster that he seeks the rest and sleep of death, why should the State add to the sufferings of that man? A man seeking death, knowing that he will be punished if he fails, will take extra pains and precautions to make death certain.

This law was born of superstition, passed by thoughtlessness and enforced by ignorance and cruelty.

When the house of life becomes a prison, when the horizon has shrunk and narrowed to a cell, and when the convict longs for the liberty of death, why should the effort to escape be regarded as a crime?

Of course, I regard life from a natural point of view. I do not take gods, heavens or hells into account. My horizon is the known, and my estimate of life is based upon what I know of life here in this world. People should not suffer for the sake of supernatural beings or for other worlds or the hopes and fears of some future state. Our joys, our sufferings and our duties are here. The law of New York about the attempt to commit suicide and the law as to divorce are about equal. Both are idiotic. Law cannot prevent suicide. Those who have lost all fear of death, care nothing for law and its penalties. Death is liberty, absolute and eternal.

We should remember that nothing happens but the natural. Back of every suicide and every attempt to commit suicide is the natural and efficient cause. Nothing happens by chance. In this world the facts touch each other. There is no space between—no room for chance. Given a certain heart and brain, certain conditions, and suicide is the necessary result. If we wish to prevent suicide we must change conditions. We must, by education, by invention, by art, by civilization, add to the value of the average life. We must cultivate the brain and heart—do away with false pride and false modesty. We must become generous enough to help our fellows without degrading them. We must make industry useful work of all kinds—honorable. We must mingle a little affection with our charity—a little fellowship. We should allow those who have sinned to really reform. We should not think only of what the wicked have done, but we should think of what we have wanted to do. People do not hate the sick. Why should they despise the mentally weak—the diseased in brain?

Our actions are the fruit, the result, of circumstances—of conditions—and we do as we must. This great truth should till the heart with pity for the failures of our race.

Sometimes I have wondered that Christians denounce the suicide; that in old times they buried him where the roads crossed, and drove a stake through his body. They took his property from his children and gave it to the State.

If Christians would only think, they would see the orthodox religion rests upon suicide—that man was redeemed by suicide, and that without suicide the whole world would have been lost.

If Christ were God, then he had the power to protect himself from the Jews without hurting them. But instead of using his power he allowed them to take his life.

If a strong man should allow a few little children to hack him to death with knives when he could easily have brushed them aside, would we not say that he committed suicide?

There is no escape. If Christ were, in fact, God and allowed the Jews to kill Him, then He consented to His own death—refused, though perfectly able, to defend and protect Himself, and was, in fact, a suicide.

We cannot reform the world by law or by superstition. As long as there shall be pain and failure, want and sorrow, agony and crime, men and women will untie life's knot and seeks the peace of death.

To the hopelessly imprisoned—to the dishonored and despised—to those who have failed, who have no future, no hope—to the abandoned, the broken-hearted, to those who are only remnants and fragments of men and women—how consoling, how enchanting is the thought of death!

And even to the most fortunate death at last is a welcome deliverer. Death is as natural and as merciful as life. When we have journeyed long—when we are weary—when we wish for the twilight, for the dusk, for the cool kisses of the night—when the senses are dull—when the pulse is faint and low—when the mists gather on the mirror of memory—when the past is almost forgotten, the present hardly perceived—when the future has but empty hands—death is as welcome as a strain of music.

After all, death is not so terrible as joyless life. Next to eternal happiness is to sleep in the soft clasp of the cool earth, disturbed by no dream, by no thought, by no pain, by no fear, unconscious of all and forever.

The wonder is that so many live, that in spite of rags and want, in spite of tenement and gutter, of filth and pain, they limp and stagger and crawl beneath their burdens to the natural end. The wonder is that so few of the miserable are brave enough to die—that so many are terrified by the "something after death"—by the specters and phantoms of superstition.

Most people are in love with life. How they cling to it in the arctic snows—how they struggle in the waves and currents of the sea—how they linger in famine—how they fight disaster and despair! On the crumbling edge of death they keep the flag flying and go down at last full of hope and courage.

But many have not such natures. They cannot bear defeat. They are disheartened by disaster. They lie down on the field of conflict and give the earth their blood.

They are our unfortunate brothers and sisters. We should not curse or blame—we should pity. On their pallid faces our tears should fall.

One of the best men I ever knew, with an affectionate wife, a charming and loving daughter, committed suicide. He was a man of generous impulses. His heart was loving and tender. He was conscientious, and so sensitive that he blamed himself for having done what at the time he thought wise and best. He was the victim of his virtues. Let us be merciful in our judgments.

All we can say is that the good and the bad, the loving and the malignant, the conscientious and the vicious, the educated and the ignorant, actuated by many motives, urged and pushed by circumstances and conditions sometimes in the calm of judgment, sometimes in passion's storm and stress, sometimes in whirl and tempest of insanity—raise their hands against themselves and desperately put out the light of life.

Those who attempt suicide should not be punished. If they are insane they should, if possible be restored to reason; if sane, they should be reasoned with, calmed and assisted.

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God

Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God 

See also Unitarianism & Universalism - 100 Books on DVDrom

The following is a list of variant translations of John 1:1:

Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."
Recovery Version, Living Streams Ministry, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The New Testament, collated with the most approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768,
"and was himself a divine person"
Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"
Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"
La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: “and the Word was a divine being.”
John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god
Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine
Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."
Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."
Concordant Version (Knoch) "God was the Word"
C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, Second Edition, 1947, "the Word was god
New English Bible, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"
Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"
International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]
Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"
Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"
Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"
Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"
Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885,
"[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”
Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"
Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]
J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"
International Bible Translators N.T. 1981
“In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God.
The Message was deity.”
Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London
"[A] Divine Person."
Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S.  (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"
Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"
Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"
J. Harold Greenlee, "and the Word was Deity" (A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek)
Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16).  "a God"
"At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order." 21st Century NT Free
"and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal
George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"
Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"
James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"
Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"
Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"
Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"
Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature
...with footnote, "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In the first instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means 'The Word was divine'."
William Barclay's The New Testament, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"
Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos
Schonfield's The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine
Revised English Bible, 1989, "what God was, the Word was
Cotton Patch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One
Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was
J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"
Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"
Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."
Bohmer, 1910, "It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being"
Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word"
Baumgarten et al, 1920, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos"
Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]
Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, "itself a God/god was the Word/word"
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"
Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"
Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"
Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"
Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"
Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "He was with God and in all like God"
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"
Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]
William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933,
"And the Word was divine."
John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"
Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"
Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"
Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament,  London, Student Movement Christian Press1931
"and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"
Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'
Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962 (original manuscript)
"In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]."
Buzzard/Hunting
“In the beginning of God’s creative effort, even before he created the
heavenly bodies and the earth, the mental power to reason logically already
existed, and the Wisdom produced by it was known only to God, for the
Wisdom was God’s Wisdom” (Pro. 8:22-30)
Barclay, W. The Daily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol.1
“III.  [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9: Finally John says that “The Word was God”. There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which english speaks. When the greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The greek for God is ‘theos’, and the definite article is ‘ho’. When greek speaks about God it does not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was ‘theos’- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was n o t saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like”

So Why the Difference? 
Let us look at the construction as it is in the Nestle-Aland Greek NT.
EN ARCH HN O LOGOS KAI O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS
Let's look at the two different appearances of the word "God" in John1:1. The first usage of 'theos' (which is spelled with the accusative case ending) is preceded by a definite article(TON QEON/The God). This gives this God "identity". The second usage is the predicate noun "QEOS" or "a god." It lacks the article. So here we see that the subject,  the LOGOS/WORD is with The God, but he belongs to a "class" of god or has the "quality" of a God. It is qualitative. As you can see I added the indefinite article "a" before the second word "god". This is perfectly acceptable as the greek doesn't have an indefinite article and so it is up to the translator to decide where the indefinite article should be. However, W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary claims that "to translate it literally, 'a god was the Word,' is entirely misleading." Vine does not deny that "a god" is a literal translation, only that we shouldn't translate it like that. But is he right? Trinitarians like Vine do not like the rendering "a god". Murray Harris in his book, Jesus as God-The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus gives us a list where others were referred to as gods in early times as titles of respect:
Heroes were gods, like Chiron and Colonus(see Sophocles Trach. 714 & Oed. Col. 65).
Skilled politicians were gods, like Demetrius Poliorketes and Antigonos (see Athanaeus 6:63).
Founding fathers of philosophical schools like Diogenes, Peregrinus and Heraclitus were gods (Peregrinus was thought so by his Christian students).
Rulers such as Ptolemy V (Epiphanes), Julius Caeser, Augustus, Herod Agrippa I, Nero and Domitian were referred to as gods.
Patriarchs like Moses are referred to as god by Philo (Sacr. AC. 9).
Certain servants such as Marricus (see Tacitus, Hist. 2:51).
And humans as possessors of great intelligence(i.e. Marcus Aurelius/Epictetus Diss.2:8:12 and Plotinus). p.27,28
But Harris only accepts "the Word was a god" on grammatical grounds as Christians are monotheistic. Christians are, but this does not disallow "god" as a title of respect. Even the Bible makes reference to others who are termed "god" but are not YHWH or false gods.
Moses is a god(Ex. 4:16; 7:1)
Kings are gods(Ps. 45:6)
Angels/Judges are gods(Ps. 8:5; 82:1-6; 97:7; 138:1)

Here is how others have viewed the title "God":
"The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question whether Christ was an angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an angel, rank as God. The explanation which was offered by the supporters of the Angel-Christoloy was that Christ, according to his nature, was a high angel, but that he was named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The word 'God' did mean, in the first place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the beings who served this deus verus [Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods' implies reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus represented. Consequently in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28),  not only angels,  but even men could be called 'gods' [cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:7, 9; Ps. 82:6, 7; John 10:34, 35] without  according  them the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius [260-330 C.E.] had thought in this way2 ... 2 Latantius, inst. Epitome [The Epitome Of The Divine Institutes], 37."-Martin Werner, The Formation Of Christian Dogma, p. 140.

"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred an honourable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His Son] is far more worthy of this honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John 10:34] is in Psalm lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; where God expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically abuse the authority and power for their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for every evil action ... Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, be- cause they are God's ministers for governing the world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world ... In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them authority."-John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 419, 20.

"We have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue."-Justin Martyr, The First Apology Of Justin, chapter XXI (21); ANF, Vol. I, p. 170.

"For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods;"-Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV (4), chapter XXXVIII (38), § 4; ANF, Vol. I, p. 52

"[the Son] having bestowed on us the truly great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the Father, deifying man by heavenly teaching,"-Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The Heathen (or, The Greeks, or, The Gentiles), chapter XI (11); ANF, Vol. II, p. 203.

"But let us, O children of the Father-nurslings of the good Instructor [Christ]-fulfil the Father's will ... and meditating on the heavenly mode of life according to which we have been deified, let us anoint ourselves with the perennial, immortal bloom of gladness."-Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Peadagogus), Book I, chapter XII (12); ANF, Vol. II, p. 234.

"The Creator did not wish to make him [mankind] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel-be not deceived-but a man. For if He had wished to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos [the Word, the Son]"-Hippolytus, The Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10), chapter XXIX (29); ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 151.

"And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God ... For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the dignity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!"-ibid., chapter XXX (30); ibid., p. 153.

"If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and by the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection of the dead."-Hippolytus, Discourse On The Holy Theophany, § 8; ANF, Vol. V, p. 237.

"For He [the Son of God] was made man that we might be made God."-Athanasisus, Incarnation Of The Word, (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Edinburgh, T&T Clark; Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Second Series, Vol. IV (4), p. 65,  reprinting of October, 1987.  "For He has become Man, that He might deify us in  Himself,  and  He has been  born  of a  woman,  and  begotten  of  a Virgin in order to transfer to Himself our erring generation, and that we may become henceforth a holy race, and 'partakers of the Divine Nature,' as blessed Peter  wrote. (2 Peter 1:4)-Athanasius, Letters of Athanasius, (Lx. Ad Adelphiun), 60.4; ibid., p. 576.

Origen (185 CE - 251 CE) is called "one of the most learned teachers and prolific authors of the early church."  (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)  Though coming well after the apostolic period, it is interesting to peruse his Commentary on John, as found in volume 9 of
Menzies' "Ante-Nicene Fathers."

              [Quote]
              We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences [John
              1:1].  He does not write without care in this respect nor is he
              unfamiliar with the Greek tongue.  In some cases he uses the article,
              and in some cases he omits it...He uses the article when the name of
              God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when
              the Logos is named God...The God who is over all is God with the
              article, not without it.

              God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so
              the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know
              Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God
              by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God
              (with the article), but rather God (without article).  And thus the
              first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to
              attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the
              other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The
              God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth."

              The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him
              are gods, images, as it were of Him the prototype.  But the
              archetypal
              image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the
              beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not
              possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father.
              [Unquote]

For Origen, John 1:1c is the logical outcome of John 1:1b, i.e., the Word is "God" or a divine being *because* he was "with" The God in the beginning, "not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father."
What I found interesting was so early a recognition of the relevance of the difference between QEOS and hO QEOS in John 1:1.  As Origen explains it, the meaning would be similar to modern translators who render John 1:1 as "the Word was Divine" or "the Word was a divine
being" or even -- yes -- "the Word was a god."
I just came across an interesting bit in Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture where a scribe altered John 1:1c in order to elevate the divine status of Jesus.

"I should observe that a similar addition of the article occurs in the 8th century Alexandrian manuscript L of John 1:1, so that the text now reads *O QEOS HN O LOGOS*-making it clear that the Word actually was God himself (not simply divine). I am somewhat reluctant to exclude this singular reading from consideration here, but am nonetheless under the distinct impresssion that it derives from the later Arian controversies. At the same time, it is worth pointing out that Origen already used the *absence* of the article in John 1:1 to demonstrate Christ's subordination to God (Jn. Com 2.2.17-18)." p. 179
I think Ehrman's comment is interesting, and the fact that John 1:1c, as it should read, is simply not enough to elevate Christ to almightihood even from a historical perspective.
To understand the translation "the Word was a god," let us look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, "One of you is a devil."ASV Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he has the qualities of a devil. The word "devil" here has no article in the greek, but most translators deem it necessary to add the "a" to complete the thought.

So what kind of god is Jesus? John 1:18 says he is the "only-begotten God" or "only-born God" who represents the God that "no man hath seen"(NASB, NWT, Lattimore, Byington.
But why is the term WORD/LOGOS used here to refer to Jesus Christ?
First, most of the early Church Fathers considered Wisdom to be Christ.
Eldon J. Epp, in his book "WISDOM, TORAH, WORD: THE JOHANNINE PROLOGUE and the PURPOSE of the  FOURTH GOSPEL  singles out Wisdom hymns in Proverbs, Sirach 24:3-9, 23-32, Baruch 3:9-4:2 and Wisdom of Solomon 7:21-9:18 that he believes influenced the Prologue of John. There are considerable parallels.
In fact, Wisdom 9:1 refers to the God who "made all things by means of his word(logos). But then 9:2 uses SOPHIA(wisdom) as a parallel to LOGOS.

"I issued from the mouth of the Most High" Sirach 24:3 Hence: a Word
"He created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never cease." Sirach 24:9
"All that was secret or manifest I learned." Wisdom 7:21
"But if the possession of wealth is to be desired in life, What is richer than wisdom, which operates everything?" And if understanding works, Who in all the world is a greater craftsman than she?" Wisdom 8:5-6
"God of my forefathers and merciful Lord, Who created all things by your word, and by your wisdom formed man
To rule over the creatures you had made." Wisdom 9:1,2
"And with you is wisdom, which knows your works, And was present when you made the world, And understands what is pleasing in your sight, And what is in accord with your commands." Wisdom 9:9
"She glorifies her high birth in living with God." Wisdom 8:3
"Give me the wisdom that sits by your throne." Wisdom 9:4
"The motif of Wisdom the woman subsequently played a notable part in Jewish and Christian thought. She appears, for example, in the Wisdom of Solomon, in Sirach, in Baruch 3:9-4:4, and in the non-biblical texts from Qumram, and her words are echoed in the New Testament (e.g. Matt. 11:28). Perhaps most resonant of all was Wisdom's speech in Proverbs 8:22-31, stressing her presence at the beginning of creation. Sirach equates Wisdom with the creative word of God (24:3) and with Torah (24:23). Readers of the jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (first century C.E.) have found it difficult to disentangle the properties of God's word (LOGOS) from Wisdom (SOPHIA) of God (1 Cor 1:24). The mini-creation story at John 1:1-3 consciously evokes Proverbs 8."

The Oxford Companion to the Bible edited by Bruce M. Metzger
"The doctrine of wisdom, thus outlined in the OT, will be resumed in the NT which will give it new and decisive completion by applying it to the person of Christ. Jesus is referred to as Wisdom itself, the Wisdom of God, Mt 11:19 par.; Lk 11:49, cf. Mt 23:34-36; 1 Co 1:24-30; like Wisdom, he participates in the creation and preservation of the world, Col 1:16-17, and the protection of Israel, 1Co 10:4, cf. Ws 10:17seq. Finally, John in his prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the Word, and his gospel throughout represents Christ as the Wisdom of God. See Jn 6:35t. Hence, Christian tradition from St Justin onwards sees in the Wisdom of the OT the person of Christ himself." footnote New Jerusalem Bible at Prov 8
"She is God's associate in his works, and his agent in making all things (Prov 8:22-30; see also Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2)." footnote at Wisdom 8:2-21 in the New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV

"While we do not say with certainty that this applies to a personal being, it does foreshadow the beautiful doctrine of the Word of God later developed in St. John`s gospel (Jn 1, 1-14)." footnote at Sirach 24, New American Bible

"Here that plurality of divine persons is foreshadowed which was afterward to be fully revealed when Wisdom in the Person of Jesus Christ became incarnate." footnote at Proverbs 8:22 New American Bible.

W. Gunther Plaut, in his work Book of Proverbs—A Commentary, says that these verses apply to Wisdom "personified only in a figurative way." This passage, however, cannot be speaking merely about divine wisdom or wisdom in the abstract. Why not? Because the "Wisdom" that is here depicted was "created" or "produced" (Hebrew, qa·nah') as the beginning of Jehovah's way.
What is the best rendering here though. Some Bibles read "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his way. The Interpreters's Bible [p.830] says of Prov 8:22 .
"The verb QANAH may be translated either way. In view of the statements made in the following verses concerning wisdom, it would seem that the RSV translates correctly; cf. also the following quotations from Ecclesiasticus:
Wisdom was created before them all,
And sound intelligence from eternity (Ecclus 1:4)
The Lord himself created her (Ecclus 1:9

Then the Creator of all gave me his command;
And he who created me made my tent rest (Ecclus 24:8 AT).

Interestingly, the New Jerusalem Bible at Proverbs 8:22 states, "The translation 'acquired me' or 'possessed me' (Aquila, Symm., Theod. ) was adopted by Jerome (Vulg), probably with an eye to the heretic Arius who maintained that the Word (=Wisdom) was a created being." So again we see a manipulation of the text to fit an errant theology. For an extensive list of Bible Translations that do not render the verb QANAH as possessed click here.
So how is it that Jesus stopped being referred to as Wisdom in many minds?

"Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all', as he who is greater also than the Son.  But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son.  In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff.  The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the pre-existent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation.  But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false.... A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone', and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not'.  When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it.  But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea." [e.a.]-pp. 155-8.  The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.

The Scriptures show that Jehovah himself has always existed. (Ps. 90:2; 1 Tim. 1:17) Because Jehovah filled his only-begotten Son with wisdom, the Son became the very symbol of wisdom and he speaks of himself as Wisdom in Proverbs chapter 8. In Pr 8 verse 30 where Moffatt uses the expression "foster-child" to refer to the Son, Moffatt is giving a literal translation of the word ah·móhn, which is from the Hebrew verb ahmán, meaning "to nourish, nurse, be guardian to". In Isaiah 49:23 the participle of this verb, ah·méhn, is translated in the King James Version "nursing fathers", and "nourishers" in the margin. At Isaiah 60:4 the word is rendered "nursed".

John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ, wrote:

When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God's Christ, God's Son, God's Wisdom, God's Word. Even the prologue to St. John{John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word "god" at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English... The adoring exclation of St. Thomas "my Lord and my god" (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (v[erse. 17) "Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as "our God", "my God", but probably never as "God" without qualification.

See also The New World Translation Bible Companion DVDrom

Trinitarian Forgeries in the New Testament by Joseph Wheless 1930

BUY: A Historical Account Of Two Notable Corruptions Of Scripture by Isaac Newton

Trinitarian Forgeries in the New Testament by Joseph Wheless 1930

Join my Facebook Group

See also 200 Books on DVDROM on the Trinity Doctrine Debate

THE BAPTISMAL FORGERY

The contradictory "baptismal formulas," the simple "in the name of the Lord" of Peter in Acts, and the elaborated forgery of Matthew, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," are sufficiently branded with falsity in the preceding paragraphs, and may be dismissed without further notice. This "Trinitarian Formula" is most palpably a late forgery, never uttered by Jesus Christ; for the Holy "Trinity" was not itself officially invented until the Council of Constantinople, in 381 A.D. Admittedly, "of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to reason"; it is therefore called a "mystery." (CE. xv, 52.) Of this Baptism-formula of Matthew, the ex-priest scholar, McCabe, says: "It was fraudulently added to the gospel when the priesthood was created." (LBB. 1121, p. 4.) Bishop Gore's English Divines thus cautiously confess the fraud: "Matthew's witness to the teaching of the risen Lord in these verses is widely rejected on two grounds. The witness of Acts makes it almost certain that baptism at first was into the name of Jesus Christ, and not formally into the name of the Blessed Trinity. ... It is quite likely that Matthew here expresses our Lord's teaching in language which the Lord Himself did not actually use." (New Comm., Pt. III, p. 204; ef. EB. i, 474.) Another blasting priestly fraud of "Scripture" forgery is thus exposed and confessed!

THE "GOD MANIFEST" FORGERY

In the King James or "Authorized" Version we read: "Great is the mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the flesh," etc. (1 Tim. iii, 16.) In the "Revised Version" this "God manifest" forged interpolation is shamed out of the text, which there honestly reads: "He who was manifested in the flesh," etc. Thus the great "mystery of godliness," premised in the text, is no longer a mystery; and the fraudulent insertion into the text by some over-zealous Christian forger, seeking to bolster up an "apostolic" pedigree for the later "tradition" of the divinity of the Christ, is confessed. This pious "interpolation" was probably made at the time and by the same holy hands which forged the "Virgin-birth" interpolations into "Matthew" and "Luke." This passage is but one of a whole series of "Spurious Passages in the New Testament," catalogued by Taylor, in the appendix to his Diegesis, (p. 421). This pious fraud was first detected and exposed by Sir Isaac Newton.

THE "THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES" FORGERY

Bishop Clement of Alexandria, writing around 200 A.D., thus quotes a comparatively trivial and innocuous passage from the forged First Epistle of St. John (v, 7),-which, through fraudulent tampering later became one of the "chief stones of the corner" of the Holy Church that the Fathers built: "John says: 'For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.'" (Clem. Alex., Fragment from Cassiodorus, ch. iii; ANF. iii, 576.) This is self-evidently the original text of this now famous, or infamous, passage. Turning now to the Word of God as found in the "Authorized" Protestant and in the Chaloner-Douay Version of the Catholic Vulgate, we read with wonder:

"7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
"8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (I John, v, 7, 8.)
Let us now turn to the same text, or what is left of it, in the Revised Version. Here we read, with more wonder (if we do not know the story of pious fraud behind it), what seems to be a garbled text:

"8. For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one."
Erasmus first detected the fraud and omitted the forged verse in his edition of the Greek Testament in 1516. (New Comm. Pt. III, p. 718-19.) This verse 7, bluntly speaking, is a forgery: "It had been wilfully and wickedly interpolated, to sustain the Trinitarian doctrine; it has been entirely omitted by the Revisers of the New Testament." (Roberts, Companion to the Revised Versions p. 72.) "This memorable text," says Gibbon, "is condemned by the silence of the Fathers, ancient versions, and authentic manuscripts, of all the manuscripts now extant, above four score in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old." (Ch. xxvii, p. 598.) Speaking of this and another, Reinach says: "One of these forgeries (I John v, 7) was subjected to interpolation of a later date. ... If these two verses were Authentic, they would be an affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity, at a time when the gospels, and Acts and St. Paul ignore it. It was first pointed out in 1516 that these verses were an interpolation, for they do not appear in the best manuscripts down to the fifteenth century. The Roman Church refused to bow to the evidence. ... The Congregation of the Index, on January 13, 1897, with the approbation of Leo XIII, forbade any question of the authenticity of the text relating to the 'Three Heavenly Witnesses.' It showed in this instance a wilful ignorance to which St. Gregory's rebuke is specially applicable: "God does not need our lies."' (Orpheus, p. 239.) But His Church does; for without them it would not be; and without the forged "Three Heavenly Witnesses," and the forged "Baptism Formula" of Matthew (xxviii, 19), there would be not a word in the entire New Testament hinting the existence of the Three-in-One God of Christianity. The Holy Trinity is an unholy Forgery!

Lest it be thought by some pious but uninformed persons that the foregoing imputation may be either false or malicious, we shall let CE. make the confession of shame, with the usual clerical evasions to "save the face" of Holy Church confronted with this proven forgery and fraud. From a lengthy and detailed review, under separate headings, of all the ancient MSS., Greek, Syriac, Ethiopia, Armenian, Old Latin, and of the Fathers, the following is condensed, but in the exact words of the text:

"The famous passage of the Three Witnesses [quoting I John, v, 7]. Throughout the past three hundred years, effort has been made to expunge from our Clementine Vulgate edition of the canonical Scriptures the words that are bracketed. Let us examine the facts of the case. [Here follows the thorough review of the MSS, closed in each instance by such words as: "The disputed part is found in none"; "no trace"; "no knowledge until the twelfth century," etc. etc.] The silence of the great and voluminous St. Augustine, [etc.] are admitted facts that militate against the canonicity of the Three Witnesses. St. Jerome does not seem to know the text,-[Jerome made the Vulgate Official Version].
"Trent's is the first certain ecumenical decree, whereby the Church established the Canon of Scripture. We cannot say that the Decree of Trent necessarily included the Three Witnesses"-[for reasons elaborately stated, and upon two conditions discussed, saying): "Neither condition has yet been verified with certainty; quite the contrary, textual criticism seems to indicate that the Comma Johanneum was not at all times and everywhere wont to be read in the Catholic Church, and it is not contained in the Old Latin Vulgate. However, the Catholic theologian must take into account more than textual criticism"! (CE. viii, 436.)

A confessed forgery of Holy Writ consciously kept in the "canonical" text as a fraudulent voucher for a false Trinity-such is "The Three Heavenly Witnesses"-to the shame and ignominy of the Holy Church of Christ, which "has never deceived any one," and which "has never made an error, and never shall err to all eternity"! This is not an error, however; it is but one more deliberate clerical "lie to the glory of God."

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

The Religious Madness of Mobs and Crowds by Gustave Le Bon 1896

Download this book for a limited time here

A RELIGIOUS SHAPE ASSUMED BY ALL THE CONVICTIONS OF CROWDS by Gustave Le Bon 1896

Join my Facebook Group

See also 175 Classic Books in Psychology on DVDrom

What is meant by the religious sentiment—It is independent of the worship of a divinity—Its characteristics—The strength of convictions assuming a religious shape—Various examples—Popular gods have never disappeared—New forms under which they are revived—Religious forms of atheism—Importance of these notions from the historical point of view— The Reformation, Saint Bartholomew, the Terror, and all analogous events are the result of the religious sentiments of crowds and not of the will of isolated individuals.

We have shown that crowds do not reason, that they accept or reject ideas as a whole, that they tolerate neither discussion nor contradiction, and that the suggestions brought to bear on them invade the entire field of their understanding and tend at once to transform themselves into acts. We have shown that crowds suitably influenced are ready to sacrifice themselves for the ideal with which they have been inspired. We have also seen that they only entertain violent and extreme sentiments, that in their case sympathy quickly becomes adoration, and antipathy almost as soon as it is aroused is transformed into hatred. These general indications furnish us already with a presentiment of the nature of the convictions of crowds.

When these convictions are closely examined, whether at epochs marked by fervent religious faith, or by great political upheavals such as those of the last century, it is apparent that they always assume a peculiar form which I cannot better define than by giving it the name of a religious sentiment.

This sentiment has very simple characteristics, such as worship of a being supposed superior, fear of the power with which the being is credited, blind submission to its commands, inability to discuss its dogmas, the desire to spread them, and a tendency to consider as enemies all by whom they are not accepted. Whether such a sentiment apply to an invisible God, to a wooden or stone idol, to a hero or to a political conception, provided that it presents the preceding characteristics, its essence always remains religious. The supernatural and the miraculous are found to be present to the same extent. Crowds unconsciously accord a mysterious power to the political formula or the victorious leader that for the moment arouses their enthusiasm.

A person is not religious solely when he worships a divinity, but when he puts all the resources of his mind, the complete submission of his will, and the whole-souled ardour of fanaticism at the service of a cause or an individual who becomes the goal and guide of his thoughts and actions.

Intolerance and fanaticism are the necessary accompaniments of the religious sentiment. They are inevitably displayed by those who believe themselves in the possession of the secret of earthly or eternal happiness. These two characteristics are to be found in all men grouped together when they are inspired by a conviction of any kind. The Jacobins of the Reign of Terror were at bottom as religious as the Catholics of the Inquisition, and their cruel ardour proceeded from the same source.

The convictions of crowds assume those characteristics of blind submission, fierce intolerance, and the need of violent propaganda which are inherent in the religious sentiment, and it is for this reason that it may be said that all their beliefs have a religious form. The hero acclaimed by a crowd is a veritable god for that crowd. Napoleon was such a god for fifteen years, and a divinity never had more fervent worshippers or sent men to their death with greater ease. The Christian and Pagan Gods never exercised a more absolute empire over the minds that had fallen under their sway.

All founders of religious or political creeds have established them solely because they were successful in inspiring crowds with those fanatical sentiments which have as result that men find their happiness in worship and obedience and are ready to lay down their lives for their idol. This has been the case at all epochs. Fustel de Coulanges, in his excellent work on Roman Gaul, justly remarks that the Roman Empire was in no wise maintained by force, but by the religious admiration it inspired. "It would be without a parallel in the history of the world," he observes rightly, "that a form of government held in popular detestation should have lasted for five centuries. . . . It would be inexplicable that the thirty legions of the Empire should have constrained a hundred million men to obedience." The reason of their obedience was that the Emperor, who personified the greatness of Rome, was worshipped like a divinity by unanimous consent. There were altars in honour of the Emperor in the smallest townships of his realm. "From one end of the Empire to the other a new religion was seen to arise in those days which had for its divinities the emperors themselves. Some years before the Christian era the whole of Gaul, represented by sixty cities, built in common a temple near the town of Lyons in honour of Augustus. . . . Its priests, elected by the united Gallic cities, were the principal personages in their country. . . . It is impossible to attribute all this to fear and servility. Whole nations are not servile, and especially for three centuries. It was not the courtiers who worshipped the prince, it was Rome, and it was not Rome merely, but it was Gaul, it was Spain, it was Greece and Asia."

To-day the majority of the great men who have swayed men's minds no longer have altars, but they have statues, or their portraits are in the hands of their admirers, and the cult of which they are the object is not notably different from that accorded to their predecessors. An understanding of the philosophy of history is only to be got by a thorough appreciation of this fundamental point of the psychology of crowds. The crowd demands a god before everything else.

It must not be supposed that these are the superstitions of a bygone age which reason has definitely banished. Sentiment has never been vanquished in its eternal conflict with reason. Crowds will hear no more of the words divinity and religion, in whose name they were so long enslaved; but they have never possessed so many fetishes as in the last hundred years, and the old divinities have never had so many statues and altars raised in their honour. Those who in recent years have studied the popular movement known under the name of Boulangism have been able to see with what ease the religious instincts of crowds are ready to revive. There was not a country inn that did not possess the hero's portrait. He was credited with the power of remedying all injustices and all evils, and thousands of men would have given their lives for him. Great might have been his place in history had his character been at all on a level with his legendary reputation.

It is thus a very useless commonplace to assert that a religion is necessary for the masses, because all political, divine, and social creeds only take root among them on the condition of always assuming the religious shape—a shape which obviates the danger of discussion. Were it possible to induce the masses to adopt atheism, this belief would exhibit all the intolerant ardour of a religious sentiment, and in its exterior forms would soon become a cult. The evolution of the small Positivist sect furnishes us a curious proof in point. What happened to the Nihilist whose story is related by that profound thinker Dostoiewsky has quickly happened to the Positivists. Illumined one day by the light of reason he broke the images of divinities and saints that adorned the altar of a chapel, extinguished the candles, and, without losing a moment, replaced the destroyed objects by the works of atheistic philosophers such as Buchner and Moleschott, after which he piously relighted the candles. The object of his religious beliefs had been transformed, but can it be truthfully said that his religious sentiments had changed?

Certain historical events—and they are precisely the most important—I again repeat, are not to be understood unless one has attained to an appreciation of the religious form which the convictions of crowds always assume in the long run. There are social phenomena that need to be studied far more from the point of view of the psychologist than from that of the naturalist. The great historian Taine has only studied the Revolution as a naturalist, and on this account the real genesis of events has often escaped him. He has perfectly observed the facts, but from want of having studied the psychology of crowds he has not always been able to trace their causes. The facts having appalled him by their bloodthirsty, anarchic, and ferocious side, he has scarcely seen in the heroes of the great drama anything more than a horde of epileptic savages abandoning themselves without restraint to their instincts. The violence of the Revolution, its massacres, its need of propaganda, its declarations of war upon all things, are only to be properly explained by reflecting that the Revolution was merely the establishment of a new religious belief in the mind of the masses. The Reformation, the massacre of Saint Bartholomew, the French religious wars, the Inquisition, the Reign of Terror are phenomena of an identical kind, brought about by crowds animated by those religious sentiments which necessarily lead those imbued with them to pitilessly extirpate by fire and sword whoever is opposed to the establishment of the new faith. The methods of the Inquisition are those of all whose convictions are genuine and sturdy. Their convictions would not deserve these epithets did they resort to other methods.

Upheavals analogous to those I have just cited are only possible when it is the soul of the masses that brings them about. The most absolute despots could not cause them. When historians tell us that the massacre of Saint Bartholomew was the work of a king, they show themselves as ignorant of the psychology of crowds as of that of sovereigns. Manifestations of this order can only proceed from the soul of crowds. The most absolute power of the most despotic monarch can scarcely do more than hasten or retard the moment of their apparition. The massacre of Saint Bartholomew or the religious wars were no more the work of kings than the Reign of Terror was the work of Robespierre, Danton, or Saint Just. At the bottom of such events is always to be found the working of the soul of the masses, and never the power of potentates.

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

The Best Quotes and Thoughts on Sherlock Holmes

Buy: The Sherlockian by Graham Moore

Join my Facebook Group

See also True Crime + Mystery Fiction - 500 Books on 2 DVDroms 

“There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” Arthur Conan Doyle, The Boscombe Valley Mystery

“I wanted to end the world, but I'll settle for ending yours.” Arthur Conan Doyle

“I am a brain, Watson. The rest of me is a mere appendix.” Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of the Mazarin Stone

“My mind," he said, "rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work, give me the most abstruse cryptogram or the most intricate analysis, and I am in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence. I crave for mental exaltation. That is why I have chosen my own particular profession, or rather created it, for I am the only one in the world.” Arthur Conan Doyle, The Sign of Four

“What you do in this world is a matter of no consequence. The question is what can you make people believe you have done.” Arthur Conan Doyle, A Study in Scarlet

“Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius.” Arthur Conan Doyle, The Valley of Fear

“Holmes and Watson are on a camping trip. In the middle of the night Holmes wakes up and gives Dr. Watson a nudge. "Watson" he says, "look up in the sky and tell me what you see."
"I see millions of stars, Holmes," says Watson.
"And what do you conclude from that, Watson?"
Watson thinks for a moment. "Well," he says, "astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Meterologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. Theologically, I see that God is all-powerful, and we are small and insignficant. Uh, what does it tell you, Holmes?"
"Watson, you idiot! Someone has stolen our tent!” Thomas Cathcart

“Show Holmes a drop of water and he would deduce the existence of the Atlantic. Show it to me and I would look for a tap. That was the difference between us.” Anthony Horowitz, The House of Silk

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” Arthur Conan Doyle, The Sign of Four

“To a great mind, nothing is little.” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

“That head of yours should be for use as well as ornament.” Arthur Conan Doyle

“If you must be Sherlock Holmes," she observed, "I'll get you a nice little syringe and a bottle labelled cocaine, but for God's sake leave that violin alone.” Agatha Christie

“Jesus Christ—”
“Sherlock Holmes, actually. And you were doing such a good job remembering my name.” Eva Morgan, Locked

“Work is the best antidote to sorrow, my dear Watson.” The Return of Sherlock Holmes

“Of all ghosts the ghosts of our old loves are the worst.” The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes

“There's a light in a woman's eyes that speaks louder than words.” The Hound of the Baskervilles

“The world is big enough for us. No ghosts need apply.” Arthur Conan Doyle

“The Press, Watson, is a most valuable institution, if you only know how to use it.” Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of the Six Napoleons

“Do you remember," he said, "one of Holmes's little scores over Watson about the number of steps up to the Baker Street lodging? Poor old Watson had been up and down them a thousand times, but he had never thought of counting them, whereas Holmes had counted them as a matter of course, and knew that there were seventeen. And that was supposed to be the difference between observation and non-observation. Watson was crushed again, and Holmes appeared to him more amazing than ever. Now, it always seemed to me that in that matter Holmes was the ass, and Watson the sensible person. What on earth is the point of keeping in your head an unnecessary fact like that? If you really want to know at any time the number of steps to your lodging, you can ring up your landlady and ask her.” A.A. Milne, The Red House Mystery

“But there can be no grave for Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson...Shall they not always live in Baker Street? Are they not there this moment, as one writes? Outside, the hansoms rattle through the rain, and Moriarty plans his latest devilry. Within, the sea-coal flames upon the hearth and Holmes and Watson take their well-won case...So they still live for all that love them well; in a romantic chamber of the heart, in a nostalgic country of the mind, where it is always 1895.” Vincent Starrett, The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes

“A Dickens character to me is a theatrical projection of a character. Not that it isn't real. It's real, but in that removed sense. But Sherlock Holmes is simply there. I would be astonished if I went to 221 1/2 B Baker Street and didn't find him." Rex Stout

“Watson is a cheap, efficient little sod of a literary device. Holmes doesn't need him to solve crimes any more than he needs a ten-stone ankle weight. The audience, Arthur. The audience needs Watson as an intermediary, so that Holmes's thoughts might be forever kept just out of reach. If you told stories from Holmes's perspective, everyone would know what the bleeding genius was thinking the whole time. They'd have the culprit fingered on page one.” Graham Moore, The Sherlockian

“To me, detective stories are a great solace, a sort of mental knitting, where it doesn't matter if you drop a stitch." Rupert Hart-Davis

“The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes.” Arthur Conan Doyle, The Hound of the Baskervilles

“Dr. Watson's summary list of Sherlock Holmes's strengths and weaknesses:
1. Knowledge of Literature: Nil.
2. Knowledge of Philosophy: Nil.
3. Knowledge of Astronomy: Nil.
4. Knowledge of Politics: Feeble.
5. Knowledge of Botany: Variable. Well up in belladonna, opium, and poisons generally. Knows nothing of practical gardening.
6. Knowledge of Geology: Practical but limited. Tells at a glance different soils from each other. After walks has shown me splashes upon his trousers, and told me by their colour and consistence in what part of London he had received them.
7. Knowledge of Chemistry: Profound.
8. Knowledge of Anatomy: Accurate but unsystematic.
9. Knowledge of Sensational Literature: Immense. He appears to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century.
10. Plays the violin well.
11. Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman.
12. Has a good practical knowledge of British law.” Arthur Conan Doyle, A Study in Scarlet

Ben Garrett: How do you do all that?
Sherlock: I was bitten by a radioactive detective. (Elementary TV Series)

Edgar Allan Poe, who, in his carelessly prodigal fashion, threw out the seeds from which so many of our present forms of literature have sprung, was the father of the detective tale, and covered its limits so completely that I fail to see how his followers can find any fresh ground which they can confidently call their own. For the secret of the thinness and also of the intensity of the detective story is, that the writer is left with only one quality, that of intellectual acuteness, with which to endow his hero. Everything else is outside the picture and weakens the effect. The problem and its solution must form the theme, and the character-drawing be limited and subordinate. On this narrow path the writer must walk, and he sees the footmarks of Poe always in front of him. He is happy if he ever finds the means of breaking away and striking out on some little side-track of his own. A. Conan Doyle

Irene Adler: Why are you always so suspicious?
Sherlock Holmes: Should I answer chronologically or alphabetically? (Sherlock Holmes movie 2009)

See also The Best Victorian Literature, Over 100 Books on DVDrom

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here