the lights of the church and the light of science-第6部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



and　flotsam；　on　the　coasts　of　Arabia；　or　of　Hindostan；　or　of　the

Maldives；　or　of　Madagascar；　its　return　to　the　〃mountains　of

Ararat〃　would　have　been　a　miracle　more　stupendous　than　all

the　rest。



Thus；　the　last　state　of　the　would…be　reconcilers　of　the　story　of

the　Deluge　with　fact　is　worse　than　the　first。　All　that　they　have

done　is　to　transfer　the　contradictions　to　established　truth　from

the　region　of　science　proper　to　that　of　common　information　and

common　sense。　For；　really；　the　assertion　that　the　surface　of　a

body　of　deep　water；　to　which　no　addition　was　made；　and　which

there　was　nothing　to　stop　from　running　into　the　sea；　sank　at　the

rate　of　only　a　few　inches　or　even　feet　a　day；　simply　outrages

the　most　ordinary　and　familiar　teachings　of　every　man's　daily

experience。　A　child　may　see　the　folly　of　it。



In　addition；　I　may　remark　that　the　necessary　assumption　of　the

〃partial　Deluge〃　hypothesis　（if　it　is　confined　to　Mesopotamia）

that　the　Hebrew　writer　must　have　meant　low　hills　when　he　said

〃high　mountains；〃　is　quite　untenable。　On　the　eastern　side　of　the

Mesopotamian　plain；　the　snowy　peaks　of　the　frontier　ranges　of

Persia　are　visible　from　Bagdad；　and　even　the　most　ignorant

herdsmen　in　the　neighbourhood　of　〃Ur　of　the　Chaldees；〃　near　its

western　limit；　could　hardly　have　been　unacquainted　with　the

comparatively　elevated　plateau　of　the　Syrian　desert　which　lay

close　at　hand。　But；　surely；　we　must　suppose　the　Biblical　writer

to　be　acquainted　with　the　highlands　of　Palestine　and　with　the

masses　of　the　Sinaitic　peninsula；　which　soar　more　than　8000　feet

above　the　sea；　if　he　knew　of　no　higher　elevations；　and；　if　so；

he　could　not　well　have　meant　to　refer　to　mere　hillocks　when　he

said　that　〃all　the　high　mountains　which　were　under　the　whole

heaven　were　covered〃　（Genesis　vii。　19）。　Even　the　hill…country　of

Galilee　reaches　an　elevation　of　4000　feet；　and　a　flood　which

covered　it　could　by　no　possibility　have　been　other　than

universal　in　its　superficial　extent。　Water　really　cannot　be　got

to　stand　at；　say；　4000　feet　above　the　sea…level　over　Palestine；

without　covering　the　rest　of　the　globe　to　the　same　height。　Even

if；　in　the　course　of　Noah's　six　hundredth　year；　some　prodigious

convulsion　had　sunk　the　whole　region　inclosed　within　〃the

horizon　of　the　geographical　knowledge〃　of　the　Israelites　by　that

much；　and　another　had　pushed　it　up　again；　just　in　time　to　catch

the　ark　upon　the　〃mountains　of　Ararat；〃　matters　are　not　much

mended。　I　am　afraid　to　think　of　what　would　have　become　of　a

vessel　so　little　seaworthy　as　the　ark　and　of　its　very　numerous

passengers；　under　the　peculiar　obstacles　to　quiet　flotation

which　such　rapid　movements　of　depression　and　upheaval　would

have　generated。



Thus；　in　view；　not；　I　repeat　of　the　recondite　speculations　of

infidel　philosophers；　but　in　the　face　of　the　plainest　and　most

commonplace　of　ascertained　physical　facts；　the　story　of　the

Noachian　Deluge　has　no　more　claim　to　credit　than　has　that　of

Deucalion；　and　whether　it　was；　or　was　not；　suggested　by　the

familiar　acquaintance　of　its　originators　with　the　effects　of

unusually　great　overflows　of　the　Tigris　and　Euphrates；　it　is

utterly　devoid　of　historical　truth。



That　is；　in　my　judgment；　the　necessary　result　of　the　application

of　criticism；　based　upon　assured　physical　knowledge　to　the　story

of　the　Deluge。　And　it　is　satisfactory　that　the　criticism　which

is　based；　not　upon　literary　and　historical　speculations；　but

upon　well…ascertained　facts　in　the　departments　of　literature　and

history；　tends　to　exactly　the　same　conclusion。



For　I　find　this　much　agreed　upon　by　all　Biblical　scholars　of

repute；　that　the　story　of　the　Deluge　in　Genesis　is　separable

into　at　least　two　sets　of　statements；　and　that；　when　the

statements　thus　separated　are　recombined　in　their　proper　order；

each　set　furnishes　an　account　of　the　event；　coherent　and

complete　within　itself；　but　in　some　respects　discordant　with

that　afforded　by　the　other　set。　This　fact；　as　I　understand；　is

not　disputed。　Whether　one　of　these　is　the　work　of　an　Elohist；

and　the　other　of　a　Jehovist　narrator；　whether　the　two　have　been

pieced　together　in　this　strange　fashion　because；　in　the

estimation　of　the　compilers　and　editors　of　the　Pentateuch；　they

had　equal　and　independent　authority；　or　not；　or　whether　there　is

some　other　way　of　accounting　for　itare　questions　the　answers

to　which　do　not　affect　the　fact。　If　possible　I　avoid　a

priori　arguments。　But　still；　I　think　it　may　be　urged；

without　imprudence；　that　a　narrative　having　this　structure　is

hardly　such　as　might　be　expected　from　a　writer　possessed　of　full

and　infallibly　accurate　knowledge。　Once　more；　it　would　seem　that

it　is　not　necessarily　the　mere　inclination　of　the　sceptical

spirit　to　question　everything；　or　the　wilful　blindness　of

infidels；　which　prompts　grave　doubts　as　to　the　value　of　a

narrative　thus　curiously　unlike　the　ordinary　run　of

veracious　histories。



But　the　voice　of　archaeological　and　historical　criticism　still

has　to　be　heard；　and　it　gives　forth　no　uncertain　sound。　The

marvellous　recovery　of　the　records　of　an　antiquity；　far　superior

to　any　that　can　be　ascribed　to　the　Pentateuch；　which　has　been

effected　by　the　decipherers　of　cuneiform　characters；　has　put　us

in　possession　of　a　series；　once　more；　not　of　speculations；　but

of　facts；　which　have　a　most　remarkable　bearing　upon　the　question

of　the　truthworthiness　of　the　narrative　of　the　Flood。　It　is

established；　that　for　centuries　before　the　asserted　migration　of

Terah　from　Ur　of　the　Chaldees　（which；　according　to　the　orthodox

interpreters　of　the　Pentateuch；　took　place　after　the　year　2000

B。C。）　Lower　Mesopotamia　was　the　seat　of　a　civilisation　in　which

art　and　science　and　literature　had　attained　a　development

formerly　unsuspected　or；　if　there　were　faint　reports　of　it；

treated　as　fabulous。　And　it　is　also　no　matter　of　speculation；

but　a　fact；　that　the　libraries　of　these　people　contain　versions

of　a　long　epic　poem；　one　of　the　twelve　books　of　which　tells　a

story　of　a　deluge；　which；　in　a　number　of　its　leading　features；

corresponds　with　the　story　attributed　to　Berosus；　no　less　than

with　the　story　given　in　Genesis；　with　curious　exactness。　Thus；

the　correctness　of　Canon　Rawlinson's　conclusion；　cited　above；

that　the　story　of　Berosus　was　neither　drawn　from　the　Hebrew

record；　nor　is　the　foundation　of　it；　can　hardly　be　questioned。

It　is　highly　probable；　if　not　certain；　that　Berosus　relied　upon

one　of　the　versions　（for　there　seem　to　have　been　several）　of　the

old　Babylonian　epos；　extant　in　his　time；　and；　if　that　is　a

reasonable　conclusion；　why　is　it　unreasonable　to　believe　that

the　two　stories；　which　the　Hebrew　compiler　has　put　together　in

such　an　inartistic　fashion；　were　ultimately　derived　from　the

same　source？　I　say　ultimately；　because　it　does　not　at　all　follow

that　the　two　versions；　possibly　trimmed　by　the　Jehovistic　writer

on　the　one　hand；　and　by　the　Elohistic　on　the　other；　to　suit

Hebrew　requirement