the lights of the church and the light of science-第4章

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！



teaching　home。　One　is　therefore　pained　to　think　of　the　feelings

with　which；　if　he　lived　so　long　as　to　become　acquainted　with　the

〃Dictionary　of　the　Bible；〃　he　must　have　perused　the　article

〃Noah；〃　written　by　a　dignitary　of　the　Church　for　that　standard

compendium　and　published　in　1863。　For　the　doctrine　of　the

universality　of　the　Deluge　is　therein　altogether　given　up；　and　I

permit　myself　to　hope　that　a　long　criticism　of　the　story　from

the　point　of　view　of　natural　science；　with　which；　at　the　request

of　the　learned　theologian　who　wrote　it；　I　supplied　him；　may；　in

some　degree；　have　contributed　towards　this　happy　result。



Notwithstanding　diligent　search；　I　have　been　unable　to　discover

that　the　universality　of　the　Deluge　has　any　defender　left；　at

least　among　those　who　have　so　far　mastered　the　rudiments　of

natural　knowledge　as　to　be　able　to　appreciate　the　weight　of

evidence　against　it。　For　example；　when　I　turned　to　the

〃Speaker's　Bible；〃　published　under　the　sanction　of　high　Anglican

authority；　I　found　the　following　judicial　and　judicious

deliverance；　the　skilful　wording　of　which　may　adorn；　but　does

not　hide；　the　completeness　of　the　surrender　of　the

old　teaching：





Without　pronouncing　too　hastily　on　any　fair　inferences　from　the

words　of　Scripture；　we　may　reasonably　say　that　their　most

natural　interpretation　is；　that　the　whole　race　of　man　had　become

grievously　corrupted　since　the　faithful　had　intermingled　with

the　ungodly；　that　the　inhabited　world　was　consequently　filled

with　violence；　and　that　God　had　decreed　to　destroy　all　mankind

except　one　single　family；　that；　therefore；　all　that　portion　of

the　earth；　perhaps　as　yet　a　very　small　portion；　into　which

mankind　had　spread　was　overwhelmed　with　water。　The　ark　was

ordained　to　save　one　faithful　family；　and　lest　that　family；　on

the　subsidence　of　the　waters；　should　find　the　whole　country

round　them　a　desert；　a　pair　of　all　the　beasts　of　the　land　and　of

the　fowls　of　the　air　were　preserved　along　with　them；　and　along

with　them　went　forth　to　replenish　the　now　desolated　continent。

The　words　of　Scripture　（confirmed　as　they　are　by　universal

tradition）　appear　at　least　to　mean　as　much　as　this。　They　do　not

necessarily　mean　more。





In　the　third　edition　of　Kitto's　〃Cyclopaedia　of　Biblical

Literature〃　（1876）；　the　article　〃Deluge；〃　written　by　my　friend；

the　present　distinguished　head　of　the　Geological　Survey　of　Great

Britain；　extinguishes　the　universality　doctrine　as　thoroughly　as

might　be　expected　from　its　authorship；　and；　since　the　writer　of

the　article　〃Noah〃　refers　his　readers　to　that　entitled　〃Deluge；〃

it　is　to　be　supposed；　notwithstanding　his　generally　orthodox

tone；　that　he　does　not　dissent　from　its　conclusions。　Again；　the

writers　in　Herzog's　〃Real…Encyclopadie〃　（Bd。　X。　1882）　and　in

Riehm's　〃Handworterbuch〃　（1884）both　works　with　a　conservative

leaningare　on　the　same　side；　and　Diestel；　in　his　full

discussion　of　the　subject；　remorselessly　rejects　the

universality　doctrine。　Even　that　staunch　opponent　of　scientific

rationalismmay　I　say　rationality？Zockler　flinches　from　a

distinct　defence　of　the　thesis；　any　opposition　to　which；　well

within　my　recollection；　was　howled　down　by　the　orthodox　as　mere

〃infidelity。〃　All　that；　in　his　sore　straits；　Dr。　Zockler　is　able

to　do；　is　to　pronounce　a　faint　commendation　upon　a　particularly

absurd　attempt　at　reconciliation；　which　would　make　out　the

Noachian　Deluge　to　be　a　catastrophe　which　occurred　at　the　end　of

the　Glacial　Epoch。　This　hypothesis　involves　only　the　trifle　of　a

physical　revolution　of　which　geology　knows　nothing；　and　which；

if　it　secured　the　accuracy　of　the　Pentateuchal　writer　about　the

fact　of　the　Deluge；　would　leave　the　details　of　his　account　as

irreconcilable　with　the　truths　of　elementary　physical　science　as

ever。　Thus　I　may　be　permitted　to　spare　myself　and　my　readers　the

weariness　of　a　recapitulation　of　the　overwhelming　arguments

against　the　universality　of　the　Deluge；　which　they　will　now　find

for　themselves　stated；　as　fully　and　forcibly　as　could　be　wished；

by　Anglican　and　other　theologians；　whose　orthodoxy　and

conservative　tendencies　have；　hitherto；　been　above　suspicion。

Yet　many　fully　admit　（and；　indeed；　nothing　can　be　plainer）　that；

as　a　matter　of　fact；　the　whole　earth　known　to　him　was　inundated；

nor　is　it　less　obvious　that　unless　all　mankind；　with　the

exception　of　Noah　and　his　family；　were　actually　destroyed；　the

references　to　the　Flood　in　the　New　Testament　are　unintelligible。



But　I　am　quite　aware　that　the　strength　of　the　demonstration　that

no　universal　Deluge　ever　took　place　has　produced　a　change　of

front　in　the　army　of　apologetic　writers。　They　have　imagined　that

the　substitution　of　the　adjective　〃partial〃　for　〃universal；〃

will　save　the　credit　of　the　Pentateuch；　and　permit　them；　after

all；　without　too　many　blushes；　to　declare　that　the　progress　of

modern　science　only　strengthens　the　authority　of　Moses。

Nowhere　have　I　found　the　case　of　the　advocates　of　this　method　of

escaping　from　the　difficulties　of　the　actual　position　better　put

than　in　the　lecture　of　Professor　Diestel　to　which　I　have

referred。　After　frankly　admitting　that　the　old　doctrine　of

universality　involves　physical　impossibilities；　he　continues：





All　these　difficulties　fall　away　as　soon　as　we　give　up　the

universality　of　the　Deluge；　and　imagine　a　partial

flooding　of　the　earth；　say　in　western　Asia。　But　have　we　a　right

to　do　so？　The　narrative　speaks　of　〃the　whole　earth。〃　But　what　is

the　meaning　of　this　expression？　Surely　not　the　whole　surface　of

the　earth　according　to　the　ideas　of　modern　geographers；

but；　at　most；　according　to　the　conceptions　of　the　Biblical

author。　This　very　simple　conclusion；　however；　is　never　drawn　by

too　many　readers　of　the　Bible。　But　one　need　only　cast　one's　eyes

over　the　tenth　chapter　of　Genesis　in　order　to　become　acquainted

with　the　geographical　horizon　of　the　Jews。　In　the　north　it　was

bounded　by　the　Black　Sea　and　the　mountains　of　Armenia；

extended　towards　the　east　very　little　beyond　the　Tigris；

hardly　reached　the　apex　of　the　Persian　Gulf；　passed；　then；

through　the　middle　of　Arabia　and　the　Red　Sea；　went　southward

through　Abyssinia；　and　then　turned　westward　by　the　frontiers　of

Egypt；　and　inclosed　the　easternmost　islands　of　the

Mediterranean　（p。　11）。





The　justice　of　this　observation　must　be　admitted；　no　less　than

the　further　remark　that；　in　still　earlier　times；　the　pastoral

Hebrews　very　probably　had　yet　more　restricted　notions　of　what

constituted　the　〃whole　earth。〃　Moreover；　I；　for　one；　fully　agree

with　Professor　Diestel　that　the　motive；　or　generative　incident；

of　the　whole　story　is　to　be　sought　in　the　occasionally　excessive

and　desolating　floods　of　the　Euphrates　and　the　Tigris。



Let　us；　provisionally；　accept　the　theory　of　a　partial　deluge；

and　try　to　form　a　clear　mental　picture　of　the　occurrence。　Let　us

suppose　that；　for　forty　days　and　forty　nights；　such　a　vast

quantity　of　water　was　poured　upon　the　ground　that　the　whole

surface　of　Mesopotamia　was　covered　by　water　to　a　depth　certainly

greater；　probably　much　greater；　than　fifteen　cubits；　or　twenty

feet　（Gen。　vii。　20）。　The　inundation　prevails　upon　the　earth　for

one　hundred　and　fifty　days　and　then　the　flood　gradually

decreases；　until；　on　the　seventeenth　day　of　the　seventh　month；

the　ark；　which　had　previously　floated　on　its　surface；　grounds

upon　the　〃mountains　of　Ararat〃　（Gen。　viii。　34）。　Then；　as

Diestel　has　acutely　pointed　out　（〃Sintflut；〃　p。　13）；　we　are　to

imagine　the　further　subsidence　of　the　flood　to　take　place　so

gradually　that　it　was　not　until　nearly　two　months　and　a　half

after　this　time　（that　is　to　say；　on　the　first　day　of　the　tenth

month）　that　the　〃tops　of　the　mountains〃　became　visible。　Hence　it

follows　that；　if　the　ark　drew　even　as　much　as　twenty　feet　of

water；　the　level　of　the　inundation　fell　very　slowlyat　a　rate

of　only　a　few　inches　a　dayuntil　the　top