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

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