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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
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 requirements； may not have been current among the
Israelites for ages。 And they may have acquired great authority
before they were combined in the Pentateuch。
Looking at the convergence of all these lines of evidence to the
one conclusionthat the story of the Flood in Genesis is merely
a Bowdlerised version of one of the oldest pieces of purely
fictitious literature extant； that whether this is； or is not；
its origin； the events asserted in it to have taken place
assuredly never did take place； further； that； in point of fact；
the story； in the plain and logically necessary sense of its
words； has long since been given up by orthodox and conservative
commentators of the Established ChurchI can but admire the
courage and clear foresight of the Anglican divine who tells us
that we must be prepared to choose between the trustworthiness
of scientific method and the trustworthiness of that which the
Church declares to be Divine authority。 For； to my mind； this
declaration of war to the knife against secular science； even in
its most elementary form； this rejection； without a moment's
hesitation； of any and all evidence which conflicts with
theological dogmais the only position which is logically
reconcilable with the axioms of orthodoxy。 If the Gospels truly
report that which an incarnation of the God of Truth
communicated to the world； then it surely is absurd to attend to
any other evidence touching matters about which he made any
clear statement； or the truth of which is distinctly implied by
his words。 If the exact historical truth of the Gospels is an
axiom of Christianity； it is as just and right for a Christian
to say； Let us 〃close our ears against suggestions〃 of
scientific critics； as it is for the man of science to refuse to
waste his time upon circle…squarers and flat…earth fanatics。
It is commonly reported that the manifesto by which the Canon of
St。 Paul's proclaims that he nails the colours of the straitest
Biblical infallibility to the mast of the ship ecclesiastical；
was put forth as a counterblast to 〃Lux Mundi〃； and that the
passages which I have more particularly quoted are directed
against the essay on 〃The Holy Spirit and Inspiration〃 in that
collection of treatises by Anglican divines of high standing；
who must assuredly be acquitted of conscious 〃infidel〃
proclivities。 I fancy that rumour must； for once； be right； for
it is impossible to imagine a more direct and diametrical
contradiction than that between the passages from the sermon
cited above and those which follow：
What is questioned is that our Lord's words foreclose certain
critical positions as to the character of Old Testament
literature。 For example； does His use of Jonah's resurrection as
a type of His own； depend in any real degree upon whether
it is historical fact or allegory？ 。。。 Once more； our Lord uses
the time before the Flood； to illustrate