太子爷小说网 > 英语电子书 > the lights of the church and the light of science >

第5节

the lights of the church and the light of science-第5节

小说: the lights of the church and the light of science 字数: 每页4000字

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 

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的