BIBLE ROMANCES
First Series
By G. W. Foote
CONTENTS:
THE CREATION STORY.
NOAH'S FLOOD.
EVE AND THE APPLE.
THE BIBLE DEVIL.
THE TEN PLAGUES;
JONAH AND THE WHALE.
THE WANDERING JEWS.
THE TOWER OF BABEL.
BALAAM'S ASS.
GOD'S THIEVES IN CANAAN.
CAIN AND ABEL.
LOT'S WIFE.
THE CREATION STORY.
BIBLE ROMANCES.--1.
By G. W. FOOTE.
The Book of Genesis is generally thought, as Professor Huxley says, to
contain the beginning and the end of sound science. The mythology of the
Jews is held to be a divine revelation of the early history of man, and
of the cosmic changes preparatory to his creation. The masses of the
people in every Christian country are taught in their childhood that God
created the universe, including this earth with all its flora and fauna,
in five days; that he created man, "the bright consummate flower" of
his work, on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh. Yet every student
knows this conception to be utterly false; every man of science rejects
it as absurd; and even the clergy themselves mostly disbelieve it Why,
then, do they not disabuse the popular mind, and preach what they deem
true instead of what they know to be false? The answer is very simple.
Because they feel that the doctrine of the Fall is bound up with the
Genesaic account of Creation, and that if the latter be discredited the
former will not long be retained. The doctrine of the Fall being the
foundation of the scheme of Atonement, the clergy will never admit the
Creation Story to be mythical until they are forced to do so by external
pressure. At any rate they cannot be expected to proclaim its falsity,
since by so doing they would destroy the main prop of their power. What
the recognised teachers of religion will not do, however, should not
be left undone, especially when it is so needful and important. Men of
science, by teaching positive and indisputable truths, are gradually
but surely revolutionising the world of thought, and dethroning the
priesthoods of mystery and superstition. Yet their influence on the
masses is indirect, and they do not often trouble themselves to show the
contradiction between their discoveries and what is preached from the
pulpit. Perhaps they are right. But it is also right that others should
appeal to the people in the name not only of science, but also of
scholarship and common sense, and show them the incredible absurdity of
much that the clergy are handsomely paid to preach as the veritable and
infallible Word of God.
The Creation Story, with which the Book of Genesis opens, is incoherent,
discrepant, and intrinsically absurd, as we shall attempt to show. It is
also discordant with the plainest truths of Science. Let us examine it,
after casting aside all prejudice and predilection.
If the universe, including this earth and its principal inhabitant, man,
was created in six days, it follows that less than six thousand years
ago chaos reigned throughout nature. This, however, is clearly untrue.
Our earth has revolved round its central sun for numberless millions of
years. Geology proves also that million years have elapsed since
organic existence first appeared on the earth's surface, and this world
became the theatre of life and death. Darwin speaks of the known history
of the world as "of a length quite incomprehensible by us," yet even
that he affirms "will hereafter be recognised as a mere fragment of
time" com-pared with the vast periods which Biology will demand. The
instructed members of the Church have long recognised these-statements
as substantially true, and they have tried to reconcile them with
Scripture by assuming that the word which in the History of Creation is
rendered _day_ really means a _period_, that is an elastic space of time
which may be expanded or contracted to suit all requirements. But there
are two fatal objections to this assumption. In the first place, the
same word is rendered _day_ in the fourth commandment, and if it
means period in Genesis it means period in Exodus. In that case we are
commanded to work six periods and rest on the seventh, and each period
must cover a geological epoch. How pleasant for those who happen to be
born in the seventh period, how unpleasant for those born in one of the
six! The lives of the one class all work, those of the other all play!
In the second place, the account of each day's creation concludes with
the refrain "and the evening and the morning were the first (or
other) day." Now evening and morning are terms which mark the luminous
gradations between night and day, and these phenomena, like night
and day, depend on the earth's revolving on its axis and presenting
different portions of its surface to the sun. Evening and morning
clearly imply a space of twenty-four hours, and the writer of Genesis,
whoever he was, would probably be surprised at any other interpretation
of his words. It is sometimes argued, as for instance by Dr. M'Caul,
that these primeval days were of vast and unknown duration, the evening
and the morning not being dependent on their present causes. But this
supposition could only apply to the first three days, for the sun, moon,
and stars were created on the fourth day, expressly "to rule over the
day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness." The
fifth and sixth days, at least, must be understood as of normal length,
and thus the chronological difficulties remain. All animal life was
brought into existence on the last two days, and therefore the Bible
still allows an antiquity of less than six thousand years for the
world's fauna. Geology and Biology allow millions of years. Here then
Science and the Bible are in flagrant and irreconcilable contradiction.
The fact that the writer of Genesis represents light as existing three
days before the creation of the sun, the source of light, has frequently
been noticed. One learned commentator supposed that God had infused a
certain "luminosity" through the air, which was not exactly the same
as the light of the sun. But light is not a _thing_; it is a phenomenon
caused by definite laws of astronomy and optics. Such explanations are
but fanciful refuges of superstition. "God said let there be light and
there was light," is not the language of science and history, but the
language of poetry. As such it is sublime. We find a similar expression
in the Vedas of the Hindoos: "He thought, I will create worlds, and they
were there!" Both become ridiculous when presented to us as a scientific
statement The physical astronomer knows how worlds are formed, as well
as how their movements are determined; he knows also the causes of
light; and he knows that none of these processes resembles the accounts
given in the Creation Stories of the Hebrews and the Hindoos.
Science knows nothing of six creative epochs, any more than of six
creative days; and it is quite certain that the order of Creation given
in Genesis differs widely from the revelations of Geology. For instance
(and one instance in such a case is as good as a thousand), fish and
fowl are said to have been created on the same day. Let us, for the sake
of argument, assume that day means period. The conclusion still is that
fish and fowl were created together. Starting from this conclusion, what
should we expect to find in our geological researches? Why, the fossil
remains of fish and of fowl in the same epochs. But we find nothing of
the kind. Marine animals antedate the carboniferous period, during which
all our coal deposits were laid, but no remains of fowl are found until
a later period. Now the carboniferious period alone, according to Sir
William Thompson, covers many millions of years; so that instead of fish
and fowl being contemporaneous, we find them geologically separated by
inconceivable spaces of time. Here again the Bible and Science fatally
disagree.
Even if we admit that the fifth day of creation was a _period_, the
chronology of the Bible is still fatally at variance with fact
With respect to the antiquity of the human race, it is precise and
unmistakable. It gives us the age of Adam at his death, and the ages of
the other antediluvian patriarchs. From the Flood the genealogies are
carefully recorded, until we enter the historic period, after which
there is not much room for dispute. From the creation of Adam to
the birth of Christ, the Bible allows about four thousand years. The
antiquity of the human race, therefore, according to Scripture, is less
than six thousand years. Science, however, proves that this is but a
fragment of the vast period during which man has inhabited the earth.
There was a civilisation in Egypt thousands of years before the alleged
creation of Adam. The Cushite civilisation was even more ancient
Archaeology shows us traces of man's presence, in a ruder state, long
before that. The researches of Mr. Pengelly in Kent's Cavern prove that
cave-men lived there more than two-hundred thousand years ago; while
geological investigations in the Valley of the Somme have established
the fact that primitive men existed there in the tertiary period.
Professor Draper writes:--"So far as investigations have gone, they
indisputably-refer the existence of man to a date remote from us by
many hundreds of thousands of years. It must be borne in mind that
these investigations are quite recent, and confined to a very limited
geographical space. No researches have yet been made in those regions
which might reasonably be regarded as the primitive habitat of man.
We are thus carried back immeasurably beyond the six thousand years of
Patristic chronology. It is difficult to assign a shorter date for the
last glaciation of Europe than a quarter of a million of years, and
_human existence antedates that_. The chronology of the Bible is thus
altogether obsolete."
The idea of a seven-days' creation was not confined to the Jews: it
was shared by the Persians and Etruscans. The division of the year into
months and weeks is a general, although not a universal practice. The
ancient Egyptians observed a ten-days' week, but the seven-days' week
was well known to them. The naming of the days of the week after the
seven Planets was noted by Dion Cassius as originally an Egyptian
custom, which spread from Egypt into the Roman Empire. The Brahmins of
India also distinguish the days of the week by the planetary names. This
division of time was purely astronomical. The Jews kept the Feast of
the New Moon, and other of their ceremonies were determined by lunar and
solar phenomena. We may be sure that the myth of a seven-days' creation
followed and did not precede the regular observance of that period.
There is one feature of the Hebrew story of creation which shows how
anthropomorphic they were. The Persians represent Ormuzd as keeping high
festival with his angels on the seventh day, after creating all things
in six. But the Hebrews represent Jehovah as _resting_ on the seventh
day, as though the arduous labors of creation had completely exhausted
his energies. Fancy _Omnipotence_ requiring rest to recruit its
strength! The Bible, and especially in its earlier parts, is grossly
anthropomorphic. It exhibits God as conversing with men, sharing their
repasts, and helping them to slaughter their foes. It represents him as
visible to human eyes, and in one instance as giving Moses a back view
of his person. Yet these childish fancies are still thrust upon as
divine truths, which if we disbelieve we shall be eternally damned!
Let us now examine the Creation Story internally. In the first place
we find two distinct records, the one occupying the whole of the first
chapter of Genesis and the first three verses of the second, at which
point the other commences. These two records belong to different periods
of Jewish history. The older one is the Elohistic, so called because the
creator is designated by the plural term _Elohim_, which in our version
is translated _God_. The more modern one is the Jehovistic, in which
Elohim is combined with the singular term _Jehovah_, translated in
our-version _the Lord God_. The Elohistic and Jehovistic accounts both
relate the creation of man, but instead of agreeing they widely differ.
The former makes God create man in his own image; the latter does not
even allude to this important circumstance. The former represents man as
created male and female at the outset; the latter represents the male
as created first, and the female for a special reason afterwards. In
the former God enjoins the primal pair to "be fruitful and multiply and
replenish the earth;" in the latter there is no such injunction, but on
the contrary, the bringing forth of children in sorrow is imposed upon
the woman as a punishment for her sin, and she does not appear to have
borne any offspring until after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
Lastly, the Elohistic record makes no mention of this Paradise, in
which, according to the Jehovistic record, the drama of the Fall was
enacted, but represents man as immediately commissioned to subdue
and populate the world. Such discrepancies are enough to stagger the
blindest credulity.
We now proceed to examine the Jehovistic account of Creation in detail.
We read that the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, the
Hebrew word for which is _adamah_. The word Adam means "be red," and
_adamah_ may be referred to the red soil of Palestine. Kalisch also
observes that man may have been originally called Adam on account of the
red color of his skin. The Chinese represent man as kneaded of _yellow_
earth, and the _red_ Indians of _red_ clay. The belief that man was
formed of earth was not confined to the Jews, but has been almost
universal, and undoubtedly arose from the fact that our bodies after
death return to the earth and resolve into the elements. The Lord God
placed this forlorn first man in the Garden of Eden with the command to
till it, and permission to eat of the fruit of all its trees except "the
tree of knowledge of good and evil." How Adam trespassed and fell, and
brought a curse upon himself and all his innocent posterity, we shall
consider in another pamphlet. The story of the Fall is infinitely
curious and diverting, and must be treated separately.
Adam's first exploit, after he had taken a good look round him, was very
marvellous. All the cattle and beasts of the field and fowl of the air
were brought before him to be named, and "whatsover Adam called every
living creature, that was the name thereof." This first Zoological
Dictionary is unfortunately lost, or we should be able to call every
animal by its right name, which would doubtless gratify them as well as
ourselves. The fishes and insects were not included in this primitive
nomenclature, so the loss of the Dictionary does not concern them.
The Lord made the animals pass before Adam seemingly with the
expectation that he would choose a partner from amongst them. Nothing,
however, struck his fancy. If he had fallen in love with a female
gorilla or ourang-outang, what a difference it would have made in the
world's history!
After this wonderful exploit "the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon
Adam," who surely must have been tired enough to fall into a good sound
natural sleep, without a heavenly narcotic. While in this state one of
his ribs was extracted for a purpose we shall presently refer to, and
which he discovered when he awoke. This curious surgical operation
involves a dilemma. If Adam was upright after it, he must have been
lopsided before; if he was upright before it, he must have been lopsided
after. In either case the poor man was very scurvily treated.
It has been maintained that God provided Adam with another rib in place
of the one extracted. But this is a mere conjecture. Besides, if the
Lord had a spare rib in stock he might have made a woman of it, without
cutting poor Adam open and making a _pre mortem_ examination of his
inside.
The divine operator's purpose was a good one, whatever we may think of
his means. He had discovered, what Omniscience would have foreknown,
that it was not good for man to be alone, and had resolved to make him a
help-meet. Adam's "spare rib" was the raw material of which his wife
was manufactured. The Greenlanders believed that the first woman was
fashioned out of the man's _thumb_. The woman was brought to Adam, who
said--"This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." Not a word
did he say about "soul of my soul." Perhaps he suspected she had none,
and with some truth, if we go no further than our English version. When
the Lord God made man, he "breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life, and man became a living soul," but apparently no such operation
was performed on Eve. Indeed, it is very difficult to prove from the
Bible that woman has a soul at all. Women should reflect on this. They
should also reflect on the invidious fact that they were not included
in the original scheme of things, but thrown in as a make-weight
afterwards. Let them ponder this a while, and the churches and chapels
in which this story is taught would soon be emptied. The majority of
those who occupy seats in such places wear bonnets, and most of those
who don't, go there for the sake of those who do.
When Adam had thus accosted his bride he grew prophetical. "Therefore,"
said he, "shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave
unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." In his desire to give the
institution of marriage the highest sanction, the writer of this story
perpetrated a gross anachronism. Adam had no parents, nor any
experience of marriage. Unless, therefore, we credit him with superhuman
prescience, it is absurd to make him talk in this way.
Eve's name, no less than Adam's, betrays the mythological character of
the story. It means the "mother of all," and was evidently applied to
her by the Jewish writers in order to signify her supposed relationship
to the human race.
While God was engaged in the work of creation, why did he not make two
human couples, instead of one? The arrangement he adopted involved the
propagation of the human species through incest Adam and Eve's sons must
have had children by their sisters. If two couples had been created,
their families might have intermarried, and mankind would not then have
sprang from the incestuous intercourse of the very first generation.
Surely omnipotence might have obviated the necessity of a crime against
which civilised consciences revolt with unspeakable disgust.
Adam and Eve were placed by God in the Garden of Eden. "Eden," says
Kalisch, "comprised that tract of land where the Euphrates and Tigris
separate; from that spot the 'garden in Eden' cannot be distant. Let it
suffice that we know its general position." Its exact position can never
be ascertained. What a pity it is that Noah did not occupy some of his
leisure time, during the centuries he lived after his exit from the ark,
in writing a typography of the antediluvian world! The Greeks placed
Paradise in the Islands of the Blessed, beyond the Pillars of Hercules
in the western main. The Swede, Rudbeck, asserts that Paradise was in
Scandinavia; some Russian writers supposed it to have been in Siberia;
and the German writers, Hasse and Schulz, on the coast of Prussia.
Eastern traditions place it in Ceylon, and regard the mountain of Rahoun
as the spot where Adam was buried. Some old Christian writers hazarded
the theory that Paradise was beyond the earth altogether, on the other
side of the ocean which they conceived to encircle it, and that Noah
was conveyed to our planet by the deluge. Kalisch gives a long list of
ancient and modern authorities on the subject, who differ widely from
each other as to the actual position of Eden, their only point of
agreement being that it was _somewhere_.
The Creation Story of the Bible cannot be considered as anything but a
Hebrew myth. Scholars have abundantly shown the absurdity of supposing
that Moses wrote it. Doubtless, as a piece of traditional mythology, it
is very ancient, but it cannot be traced back in its present literary
form beyond the Babylonish captivity. Men of science without exception
disbelieve it, not only with regard to the world in general, but also
with regard to the human race. In his famous article on "The Method and
Results of Ethnology," Professor Huxley made this declaration:--"There
are those who represent the most numerous, respectable, and would-be
orthodox of the public, and who may be called 'Adamites,' pure and
simple. They believe that Adam was made out of earth somewhere in Asia,
about six thousand years ago; that Eve was modelled from one of his
ribs; and that the progeny of these two having been reduced to the eight
persons who landed on the summit of Mount Ararat after an universal
deluge, all the nations of the earth have proceeded from these last,
have migrated to their present localities, and have become converted
into negroes, Australians, Mongolians, etc., within that time.
Five-sixths of the public are taught this Adamitic Monogenism as if
it were an established truth, and believe it. I do not; and I am not
acquainted with any man of science, or duly instructed person, who
does." The clergy, then, who go on teaching this old Creation Story as
true, are either unduly instructed or dishonest, ignorant or fraudulent,
blind guides or base deceivers. It is not for us to determine to which
class any priest or preacher belongs: let the conscience of each, as
assuredly it will, decide that for himself. But ignorant or dishonest,
we affirm, is every one of them who still teaches the Creation Story as
a record of actual facts, or as anything but a Hebrew myth.
The origin of the human race is far different from that recorded in
Genesis. Man has undoubtedly been developed from a lower form of life.
The rude remains of primitive men show that they were vastly inferior to
the present civilised inhabitants of the world, and even inferior to
the lowest savages with whom we are now acquainted. Their physical and
mental condition was not far removed from that of the higher apes; and
the general opinion of biologists is that they were descended from
the Old World branch of the great Simian family. There is, indeed, no
_absolute_ proof of this, nor is it probable that there ever will be, as
the fossil links between primitive man and his Simian progenitor,
if they exist at all, are most likely buried in that sunken continent
over which roll the waters of the South Pacific Ocean. But as the line
of natural development can be carried back so far without break, there
is no reason why it should not be carried farther. The evolution theory
is now almost universally accepted by men of science, and few of them
suppose that man can be exempted from the general laws of biology. At
any rate, the Bible account of Creation is thoroughly exploded, and when
that is gone there is nothing to hinder our complete acceptance of the
only theory of man's origin which is consistent with the facts of his
history, and explains the peculiarities of his physical structure.
NOAH'S FLOOD.
BIBLE ROMANCES--2.
By G. W. FOOTE.
The Bible story of the Deluge is at once the biggest and the most
ridiculous in the whole volume. Any person who reads it with the eyes of
common sense, and some slight knowledge of science, must admit that it
is altogether incredible and absurd, and that the book which contains it
cannot be the Word of God.
About 1,656 years after God created Adam, and placed him in the garden
of Eden, the world had become populous and extremely wicked; indeed,
every thought and imagination of man's heart was evil continually. What
was the cause of all this wickedness we are not informed; but we are
told that the sons of God took unto them wives of the daughters of men
because they were fair, and we are led to suppose that these matches
produced giants and other incurably wicked offspring. No physiological
reason is assigned for this Strange result, nor perhaps was there any
present to the mind of the writer, who probably had witnessed unhappy
marriages in his own family, and was anxious to warn his readers,
however vaguely, against allowing their daughters to be inveigled into
matrimonial bonds with pious sniffling fellows, who professed themselves
peculiarly the children of their Father in heaven. However, the
narrative is clear as to the fact itself: men had all gone irrecoverably
astray, and God had repented that he ever made them. In such a case
an earthly human father would naturally have attempted to improve his
family; but the Almighty Father either was too indifferent to do so, or
was too well aware of the impossibility of reforming his own wretched
offspring; and therefore he determined to drown them all at one fell
swoop, just as cat-loving old ladies dispose of a too numerous and
embarrassing feline progeny. Bethinking him, however, God resolved to
save alive one family to perpetuate the race: he was willing to give his
creatures another chance, and then, if they persisted in going the wrong
way, it would still be easy to drown the lot of them again, and that
without any reservation. He had also resolved at first to destroy every
living thing from off the face of the earth; but he afterwards decided
to spare from destruction two of every species of unclean beasts, male
and female, and fourteen, male and female, of all clean beasts and of
all fowls of the air and of every creeping thing. Noah, his wife, his
three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and their wives (eight persons in
all), were the only human beings to be preserved from the terrible fate
of drowning.
Noah was commanded by God to build an ark for the reception-of the
precious living freight, the dimensions of which were to be, in English
measure, 550 _feet long_, 93 _feet wide_, _and 55 feet deep_. Into this
floating box they all got; the flood then came and covered the earth,
and all besides were drowned.
Now this is a very strange, a very startling story; it seems more like
a chapter from the "Arabian Nights" or the "Adventures of Baron
Munchausen" than from the sacred Scriptures of any Religion. Carnal
reason prompts us to ask many questions about it.
1. How did Noah contrive to bring these beasts, birds, and insects all
together in one spot? The task seems superhuman. Some species could be
found only in very remote places--the kangaroo only in Australia, the
sloth only in South America, the polar bear only in the Arctic regions.
How could Noah, in those days of difficult locomotion, have journeyed in
search of these across broad rivers, and over continents and oceans?
Did he bring them singly to his dwelling-place in Asia, or did he travel
hither and thither with his menagerie, and finish the collection before
returning home? There are, according to Hugh Miller, 1,658 known species
of mammalia, 6,266 of birds, 642 of reptiles, and 550,000 of insects;
how _could_ one man, or a hundred men, have collected specimens of these
in those days, and in such & brief space of time? The beasts, clean and
unclean, male and female, might be got together by means of terrible
exertion; but surely to assemble the birds and reptiles and insects must
transcend human capacity. Some of the last class would of course not
require much seeking; they visit us whether we desire their company or
not; and the difficulty would not be how to get them into the ark, but
how on earth to keep them out. Others, however, would give infinite
trouble. Fancy Noah occupied in a _wild-goose_ chase, or selecting
specimens from a wasps' or hornets' nest, or giving assiduous chase to a
vigilant and elusive bluebottle fly!
But suppose Noah to have succeeded in his arduous enterprise, the
question still remains, how did he keep his wonderful zoological
collection alive? Some of them could live only in certain latitudes; the
inhabitants of cold climates would melt away amidst the torrid heat of
Central Asia. Then, again, there are some insects that live only a few
hours, and some that live a few days at the utmost: what means were
adopted for preserving these? Some animals, too, do not pair, but run
in herds; many species of fish swim in shoals; sometimes males and
sometimes females predominate, as in the case of deer, where one male
heads and appropriates a whole herd of females, or in the case of bees,
where many males are devoted to the queen of the hive. These could
not have gone in pairs, or lived in pairs; their instincts pointed
to another method of grouping. How did Noah provide for _their_ due
preservation? When these questions are answered others speedily arise;
in fact, there is no end to the difficulties of this marvellous story.
2. Whence and how did Noah procure the food for his huge menagerie?
That he was obliged to do so, that the animals were not miraculously
preserved without food, we are certain; for he was expressly commanded
by God to gather food for himself and for them. "Take thou unto thee,"
it was said to him, "of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather
it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them." What
provision was made for the _carnivorous_ animals, for lions, tigers,
vultures, kites, and hawks? Some of these would require not simply meat,
but _fresh_ meat, which could not be provided for them unless superfluous
animals were taken into the ark to be killed, or Noah had learned the
art of potting flesh. Otters would require fish, chameleons flies,
woodpeckers grubs, night-hawks moths, and humming-birds the honey of
flowers. What vast quantities of water also would be consumed! In
fact, the task of collecting food to last all the inmates of the ark,
including the eight human beings, for more than a year, must have been
greater even than that of bringing them together in the first place from
every zone. The labors of Hercules were mere trifles compared with those
of Noah. Poor old patriarch! He amply earned _his_ salvation. Had he
been possessed of one tithe of Jacob's cunning and business sagacity, he
would have struck a better bargain with God, and have got into the ark
on somewhat easier terms. Few men would have undertaken so much to gain
so little.
3. How were all the animals, with their food, got into the ark? The
dimensions as given in the Bible would be insufficient to accommodate a
tithe of them; the ark could not have contained them all, if they were
packed together like herrings or sardines. Even if they were so packed,
space would still be required for their food; and for what a vast
quantity! An animal even with man's moderate appetite would consume in
the course of twelve months solid matter to the extent of four or five
times its own weight, and some animals are of course far more voracious.
This difficulty as to stowing the animals and their food into the ark is
quite insuperable; it is not to be obviated by any employment of
miraculous intervention. Not even omnipotence can make a clock strike
less than one, and God himself must fail to make two things occupy the
same space at the same time.
4. How where the inmates of this floating menagerie, supposing them got
in, supplied with fresh air? According to the Bible narrative the ark
was furnished with but one window of a cubit square, and one door
which was shut by God himself, and it may be presumed, quite securely
fastened. Talk about the Black-hole of Calcutta, why it was nothing to
this! What a scramble there must have been for that solitary window
and a mouthful of fresh air! Lions, tigers, jackals, hyaenas,
boa-constrictors, kangaroos, eagles, owls, bees, wasps, bluebottles,
with Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and their wives, all in one fierce
melee. But the contention for the precious vital air must, however
violent, have soon subsided: fifteen minutes would have settled them
all. Yet curiously enough the choking animals-suffered no appreciable
injury; by some occult means they were all preserved from harm; which
furnishes another illustration of the mysterious ways of God. What
powerful perfumes, too, must have arisen from all those animals! So
powerful indeed that even the rancid flavor of foxes and skunks must
have been undistinguishable from the blended scents of all their fellow
passengers. Those who have visited Wombwell's menagerie, or stood in
the monkey-house of the Zoological Gardens, doubtless retain a lively
recollection of olfactory disgust, even although in those places the
must scrupulous cleanliness is observed; but their experience of such
smells would have been totally eclipsed if they could but for a moment
have stood within Noah's ark amidst all its heterogeneous denizens.
However the patriarch and his sons managed to cleanse this worse than
Augean stable passes all understanding. And then what trampings they
must have had up and down those flights of stairs communicating with the
three storeys of the ark, in order to cast all the filth out of that one
window. No wonder their children afterwards began to build a tower of
Babel to reach unto heaven; it was quite natural that they should desire
plenty of steps, to mount, so as to gratify fully the itch of climbing
they had inherited from their parents.
5. Where did all the water come from? According to the Bible story the
waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days, and covered
all the high hills and mountains under the whole heaven. Now mount
Ararat itself, on which the Ark eventually rested, is seventeen thousand
feet high, and the utmost peaks of Himalaya are nearly twice as high
as that; and to cover the whole earth with water to such a tremendous
height would require an immense quantity of water; in fact, about eight
times as much as is contained in all the rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans
of our globe. Whence did all this water come? The Scripture explanation
is sadly insufficient; the fountains of the great deep were broken up,
and the windows of heaven were opened, and the rain was upon the earth
for forty days and forty nights. The writer evidently thought that there
were great fountains at the bottom of the sea, capable of supplying
water in unlimited quantities from some central reservoir; but science
knows nothing whatever about them; nay, science tells us that the
internal reservoir, if there be one, must contain not water, but liquid
fire. If _this_ great reservoir poured its contents into the sea, the
result would be similar to that frightful catastrophe imagined by the
Yankee who wished to see Niagara Falls pour into Mount Vesuvius.
The supply from that quarter thus failing, we are forced back upon the
rain which descended from the windows of heaven, wherever they may be.
It rained forty days and forty nights. Forty days and forty nights!
Why forty million days and nights of rain would not have sufficed. The
writer was evidently in total ignorance of the laws of hydrology. The
rain which falls from the clouds originally comes from the waters of the
earth, being absorbed into the atmosphere by the process of evaporation.
The utmost quantity of water that can thus be held in suspense
throughout the entire atmosphere is very small; in fact, if
precipitated, it would only cover the ground to the depth of about
five inches. After the first precipitation of rain, the process of
evaporation would have to be repeated; that is, for every additional
descent of rain a proportionate quantity of water would have to be
extracted from the rivers, lakes, and seas below. Now, surely every sane
man must perceive that this pretty juggle could not add one single drop
to the previously existing amount of water, any more than a man could
make himself rich by taking money out of one pocket and putting it into
another. The fabled man who is reported to have occupied himself with
dipping up water from one side of a boat and emptying it over on the
other, hoping thereby to bale the ocean dry, must have been the real
author of this story of Noah and his wonderful ark.
Some Christian writers, such as Dr. Pye Smith, Dr. Barry, and Hugh
Miller, have contended that the author of the book of Genesis is
describing not a universal but a partial deluge; not a flood which
submerged the whole earth, out one that merely covered some particular
part of the great Central Asian plains. But surely, apart from any
consideration pertaining to the very emphatic language of the text,
rational men must perceive that the difficulty is not obviated by this
explanation, but rather increased. How could the waters ascend in one
place to the height of seventeen thousand feet (the height of Mount
Ararat) without overflowing the adjacent districts, and, indeed, the
whole earth, in conformity to the law of gravitation? Delitzch is bold
enough to assert that the flood of water was ejected with such force
from the fountains beneath that it assumed quite naturally a conical
shape. But then, even supposing that this explication were anything
but sheer silliness, which it is not, how would the learned commentator
account for the water retaining its conical shape for months after the
force of upheaval had expended itself? These explanations are entirely
fanciful and groundless. The language of the narrative is sufficiently
explicit "And _all_ flesh died that moved upon the earth;" "all in
whose nostrils was the breath of life;" "and every living substance
was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground;" and "Noah _only_
remained alive and they that were with him in the ark." Such are the
precise unmistakeable words of Scripture, which no sophistry can explain
away. But even if the contention for a partial deluge could be made
good, the fundamental difficulties would still remain. As Colenso
observes, the flood, "whether it be regarded as a _universal_ or a
_partial_ deluge, is equally incredible and impossible."
Geology absolutely contradicts the possibility of any such catastrophe
as the deluge within the historic period. According to Sir Charles
Lyell, no devastating flood could have passed over the forest zone of
Ætna during the last twelve thousand years; and the volcanic cones of
Auvergne, which enclose in their ashes the remains of extinct animals,
and present an outline as perfect as that of Ætna, are deemed older
still. Kalisch forcibly presents this aspect of the question: "Geology
teaches the impossibility of a universal deluge since the last six
thousand years, but does not exclude a partial destruction of the
earth's surface within that period. The Biblical text, on the other
hand, demands the supposition of a universal deluge, and absolutely
excludes a partial flood."
6. What became of all the fish? In such a deluge the rivers and seas
must have mingled their waters, and this, in conjunction with the
terrific outpour from the windows of heaven, must have made the water
brackish, too salt for fresh-water fish, and too fresh for salt-water
fish; and consequently the aquatic animals must all have perished,
unless, indeed, they were miraculously preserved--a contingency which
anyone is free to conjecture, out no one is at liberty to assert, seeing
that the inspired writer never even hints such a possibility. Now there
is no evidence whatever that Noah took and _fish_ with him into the ark;
under natural circumstances they must have perished outside; yet the
seas and rivers still teem with life. When did the new creation of fish
take place?
7. What became of all the vegetation? Every particle of it must
have rotted during such a long submergence. But even if mysteriously
preserved from natural decay, it must still have been compressed into a
mere pulp by the terrific weight of the super-incumbent water. Colenso
estimates that the pressure of a column of water 17,000 feet high would
be 474 tons upon each square foot of surface--a pressure which nothing
could have resisted. Yet, wonderful to relate, just prior to the resting
of the ark on Mount Ararat, the dove sent out therefrom returned with
an olive leaf in her mouth _just pluckt off_. A fitting climax to this
wonderful story.
Finally the story relates how the ark rested on the top of Mount Ararat,
whence its inmates descended to the plains below, which were then quite
dry. Mount Ararat towers aloft three thousand feet above the region of
eternal snow. How the poor animals, aye, even the polar bear, must have
shivered! And what a curious sight it must have been to witness their
descent from such a height Often have I speculated on the probable way
in which the elephant got down, and after much careful thought I have
concluded thus: either he had waxed so fat with being fed so long on
miraculous food that he rolled pleasantly down like a ball, with no
other injury than a few scratches; or he had become so very, very thin
with living simply on expectations, in default of more substantial
fare, that he gently floated down by virtue of levity, like a descending
feather.
And then what journeys some of the poor animals would have to make; the
kangaroo back to Australia, the sloth to South America, the polar bear
to the extreme north. How they lived on the road to their ultimate
destinations the Lord only knows. There was no food for them; the deluge
had destroyed all vegetation for the herbiverous animals, all flesh for
the carniverous. Not even a nibble was left for the sheep.
As for poor Noah, the first thing recorded of him after his watery
expedition is that he drank heavily of wine and got into a state of
beastly inebriation. And who can wonder that he did so? The poor old man
had floated about on oceans of water for more than a year, and probably
he was heartily sick of his watery prospect. The astonishing thing is
that he did not get water on the brain. It was quite natural that
he should swill deep potations of some stronger fluid on the first
available opportunity. Surely he had water enough during that twelve
months to last a lifetime; enough to justify his never touching the
wretched fluid again.
While Noah was dead drunk, his second son. Ham, saw "the nakedness
of his father," and reported the fact to his two brethren, who took a
garment and, walking backwards so that they might not see, covered
the patriarch's nudity. On recovering from his drunken stupor, Noah
discovered "what his younger son had done unto him," and proceeded at
once to vigorous cursing. Ham was the offender, if there was any offence
at all, which is not very clear; but punishment in the Bible is
generally vicarious, and we read that the irate patriarch cursed Canaan,
the son of Ham, for his father's misdemeanor. Flagitiously unjust as
it is, this proceeding thoroughly accords with Jehovah's treatment
of Adam's posterity after he and Eve had committed their first sin by
eating of the forbidden fruit.
Before Noah got drunk he had received from God the assurance that the
world should never more be destroyed by a flood. As a perpetual sign of
this covenant the rainbow was set in the heavens. But the rainbow
must have been a common sight for centuries before. This phenomenon of
refraction is the result of natural causes which operated before
the Flood, as well as after. The earth yielded its fruits for human
sustenance, and therefore rain must have fallen. If rain fell before the
Deluge, as we are bound to conclude, the rainbow must have been then as
now. The usual practice of commentators is to explain this portion
of the narrative by assuming that the rainbow was visible before
the covenant with Noah, but only after the covenant had a special
significance. But, as Colenso observes, the writer of the story
supposes the rainbow was then first set in the clouds, and is evidently
accounting for the _origin_ of this beautiful phenomenon, which might
well appear _super_natural to his uninstructed imagination.
Besides the manifold absurdities of this story there are other aspects
of it even more startling. What a picture it presents of fiendish
cruelty and atrocious vindictiveness! What an appalling exhibition
of divine malignity! God, the omnipotent and omniscient ruler of the
universe, is represented as harboring and executing the most diabolical
intentions. He ruthlessly exterminates all his children except a favored
few, and includes in his vengeance the lower animals also, although
they were innocent of offence against his laws. Every creature in whose
nostrils was the breath of life, with the exception of those persevered
in the ark, was drowned, and the earth was turned into a vast
slaughter-house. How imagination pictures the terrible scene as the
waters rise higher and higher, and the ravening waves speed after their
prey! Here some wretched being, baffled and hopeless, drops supinely
into the raging flood; there a stronger and stouter heart struggles to
the last. Here selfish ones battling for their own preservation; there
husbands and wives, parents and children, lovers and maidens, affording
mutual aid, or at last, in utter despair, locked in a final embrace and
meeting death together. And when the waters subside, what a sickening
scene presents itself! Those plains, once decked with verdure,
and lovely in the sun and breeze, are covered with the bones of a
slaughtered world. How can the Christian dare to justify such awful
cruelty? The God of the Pentateuch is not a beneficent universal father,
but an almighty fiend.
This story of Noah's Flood is believed still because people never
examine what is taught them as the word of God. Every one who analyses
the story must pronounce it the most extraordinary amalgam of immorality
and absurdity ever palmed off on a credulous world.
EVE AND THE APPLE.
BIBLE ROMANCES.-3.
By G. W. FOOTE.
Christianity is based upon the story of the Fall. In Adam all sinned, as
in Christ all must be sayed. Saint Paul gives to this doctrine the
high sanction of his name, and we may disregard the puny whipsters of
theology, who, without any claim to inspiration, endeavor to explain the
Genesaic narrative as an allegory rather than a history. If Adam did not
really fall he could not have been cursed for falling, and his posterity
could not have become partakers either in a sin which was never
committed or in a malediction which was never pronounced. Nor can
Original Sin be a true dogma if our first parents did not transmit the
germs of iniquity to their children. If Adam did not fall there was no
need for Christ to save us; if he did not set God and man at variance
there was no need for an atonement; and so the Christian scheme of
salvation would be a _fiasco_ from beginning to end. This will never do.
No Garden of Eden, no Gethsemane! No Fall, no Redemption! No Adam, no
Christ!
Mother Eve's curiosity was the motive of the first transgression of
God's commandments in the history of the world, and the whole human
race was brought under the risk of eternal perdition because of her
partiality to fruit. Millions of souls now writhe in hell because,
six thousand years ago, she took a bite of an apple. What a tender and
beautiful story! God made her to be Adam's helpmeet. She helped him to
a slice of apple, and that soon helped them both outside Eden. The sour
stuff disagreed with him as it did with her. It has disagreed, with all
their posterity. In fact it was endowed with the marvellous power of
transmitting spiritual stomach-ache through any number of generations.
How do we know that it was an _apple_ and not some other fruit? Why, on
the best authority extant after the Holy Scriptures themselves, namely,
our auxiliary Bible, "Paradise Lost;" in the tenth book whereof Satan
makes the following boast to his infernal peers after his exploit in
Eden:--
"Him by fraud I have seduced
From his Creator, and, the more to increase
Your wonder, with an _apple_."
Yet another authority is the profane author of "Don Juan," who, in the
first stanza of the tenth canto, says of Newton:
"And this is the sole mortal who could grapple,
Since Adam, with a fall, or with an _apple_."
Milton, being very pious, was probably in the counsel of God. How else
could he have given us an authentic version of the long colloquies that
were carried on in heaven? Byron, being very profane, was probably in
the counsel of Satan. And thus we have the most unimpeachable testimony
of two opposite sources to the fact that it was an _apple_, and not a
rarer fruit, which overcame the virtue of our first parents, and played
the devil with their big family of children.