Raulston opened the day’s session by citing Darrow for contempt of court, due to his insulting remarks the previous Friday. The judge required that he appear in court the next day to receive a sentence and set bail at $5,000, which Neal assured the court would be paid.
The jury was excused so that Hays could present the written affidavits of the defense’s expert witnesses for the official record. He particularly focused on statements from Bible scholars who believed the Bible should not be interpreted literally, and who believed that the theory of evolution was not necessarily in conflict with the Bible. Raulston then adjourned for lunch.
At the beginning of the afternoon session, Darrow apologized to Raulston, saying that although he didn’t believe the comments warranted a contempt citation, he agreed they were insulting to the judge. Raulston accepted Darrow’s apology, declaring that he was moved by the spirit of Christ to forgive.
After the contempt charge was dismissed, the judge decided to move the court proceedings outside due to the heat. Once the court was re-assembled on the courthouse lawn, and a sign reading “Read Your Bible” was removed at Darrow’s request, Hays announced that the defense wished to call Bryan to the stand as a witness to speak as an expert on the Bible, to the shock of everyone apart from the defense. The rest of the prosecution team objected, but Bryan agreed, as long as Darrow, Hays, and Malone could be questioned afterward.
Tennessee v. John T. Scopes Trial: Outdoor proceedings on July 20, 1925, showing William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow.
Photo Source: Smithsonian Institution
Q—You claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?
A—I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there: some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: "Ye are the salt of the earth." I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people.
Q—But when you read that Jonah swallowed the whale--or that the whale swallowed Jonah-- excuse me please--how do you literally interpret that?
A—When I read that a big fish swallowed Jonah--it does not say whale....That is my recollection of it. A big fish, and I believe it, and I believe in a God who can make a whale and can make a man and make both what He pleases.
Q—Now, you say, the big fish swallowed Jonah, and he there remained how long--three days-- and then he spewed him upon the land. You believe that the big fish was made to swallow Jonah?
Seventh Day Proceedings, Page 285.
Darrow began his questioning of Bryan, first asking, “You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven’t you, Mr. Bryan?” To which Bryan replied, “Yes, sir, I have tried to.” The main focus of Darrow’s examination was Bryan’s interpretations of the Bible, many of which had been published. Darrow asked pointedly, and relentlessly, about various passages of the Bible, trying to get Bryan to admit that the Bible was subject to different interpretations. From the start of the testimony, Bryan refused to admit that everything in the Bible should be interpreted literally, arguing instead that it should be understood as illustrative.
Several times, Bryan stated that his purpose in taking the stand was to show that he was not afraid to defend his faith. After about two hours of questioning, Raulston adjourned the court.
