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



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　the　carelessness　of　men

before　His　own　coming。　。。。　In　referring　to　the　Flood　He

certainly　suggests　that　He　is　treating　it　as　typical；　for　He

introduces　circumstances〃eating　and　drinking；　marrying　and

giving　in　marriage　〃which　have　no　counterpart　in　the　original

narrative〃　（pp。　358…9）。





While　insisting　on　the　flow　of　inspiration　through　the　whole　of

the　Old　Testament；　the　essayist　does　not　admit　its　universality。

Here；　also；　the　new　apologetic　demands　a　partial　flood：





But　does　the　inspiration　of　the　recorder　guarantee　the　exact

historical　truth　of　what　he　records？　And；　in　matter　of　fact；　can

the　record　with　due　regard　to　legitimate　historical　criticism；

be　pronounced　true？　Now；　to　the　latter　of　these　two　questions

（and　they　are　quite　distinct　questions）　we　may　reply　that　there

is　nothing　to　prevent　our　believing；　as　our　faith　strongly

disposes　us　to　believe；　that　the　record　from　Abraham　downward

is；　in　substance；　in　the　strict　sense　historical　（p。　351）。





It　would　appear；　therefore；　that　there　is　nothing　to　prevent　our

believing　that　the　record；　from　Abraham　upward；　consists　of

stories　in　the　strict　sense　unhistorical；　and　that　the　pre…

Abrahamic　narratives　are　mere　moral　and　religious　〃types〃

and　parables。



I　confess　I　soon　lose　my　way　when　I　try　to　follow　those　who　walk

delicately　among　〃types〃　and　allegories。　A　certain　passion　for

clearness　forces　me　to　ask；　bluntly；　whether　the　writer　means　to

say　that　Jesus　did　not　believe　the　stories　in　question；　or　that

he　did？　When　Jesus　spoke；　as　of　a　matter　of　fact；　that　〃the

Flood　came　and　destroyed　them　all；〃　did　he　believe　that　the

Deluge　really　took　place；　or　not？　It　seems　to　me　that；　as　the

narrative　mentions　Noah's　wife；　and　his　sons'　wives；　there　is

good　scriptural　warranty　for　the　statement　that　the

antediluvians　married　and　were　given　in　marriage；　and　I　should

have　thought　that　their　eating　and　drinking　might　be　assumed　by

the　firmest　believer　in　the　literal　truth　of　the　story。

Moreover；　I　venture　to　ask　what　sort　of　value；　as　an

illustration　of　God's　methods　of　dealing　with　sin；　has　an

account　of　an　event　that　never　happened？　If　no　Flood　swept　the

careless　people　away；　how　is　the　warning　of　more　worth　than　the

cry　of　〃Wolf〃　when　there　is　no　wolf？　If　Jonah's　three　days'

residence　in　the　whale　is　not　an　〃admitted　reality；〃　how　could

it　〃warrant　belief〃　in　the　〃coming　resurrection？〃　If　Lot's　wife

was　not　turned　into　a　pillar　of　salt；　the　bidding　those　who　turn

back　from　the　narrow　path　to　〃remember〃　it　is；　morally；　about　on

a　level　with　telling　a　naughty　child　that　a　bogy　is　coming　to

fetch　it　away。　Suppose　that　a　Conservative　orator　warns　his

hearers　to　beware　of　great　political　and　social　changes；　lest

they　end；　as　in　France；　in　the　domination　of　a　Robespierre；

what　becomes；　not　only　of　his　argument；　but　of　his　veracity；　if

he；　personally；　does　not　bel