THE DELUGE OF NOAH
To the older men of this generation, who have followed the changes of
scientific and historical opinion, the story of the Deluge, old though
it is, has passed through a variety of phases like the changes of a
kaleidoscope, and which may afford an instructive illustration of the
modifications of belief in other, and some of them to us more important,
matters, whether of history or of religion, which have presented
themselves in like varied aspects, and may be variously viewed in the
future.
As children we listened with awe and wonder to the story of the wicked
antediluvians, and of their terrible fate and the salvation of righteous
Noah, and received a deep and abiding impression of the enormity of
moral evil and of the just retribution of the Great Ruler of the
Universe. A little later, though the idea that all the fossil remains
imbedded in the rocks are memorials of the Deluge had passed away from
the minds of the better informed, we read with interest the wonderful
revelations of the bone-caves described by Buckland, and felt that the
antediluvian age had become a scientific reality. But later still all
this seemed to pass away like a dream. Under the guidance of Lyell we
learned that even the caves and gravels must be of greater age than the
historical Deluge, and that the remains of men and animals contained in
them must have belonged to far-off æons, antedating perhaps even the
Biblical creation of man, while the historical Deluge, if it ever
occurred, must have been an affair so small and local that it had left
no traces on the rocks of the earth. At the same time Biblical critics
were busy with the narrative itself, showing that it could be decomposed
into different documents, that it bore traces of a very recent origin,
that it was unhistorical, and to be relegated to the same category with
the fairy-tales of our infancy. Again, however, the kaleidoscope turns,
and the later researches of geology into the physical and human history
of the more recent deposits of the earth's crust, the discoveries of
ancient Assyrian or Chaldean records of the Deluge, and the comparison
of these with the ancient history of other nations, rehabilitate the old
story; and as we study the new facts respecting the so-called
palæolithic and neolithic men, the clay tablets recovered from the
libraries of Nineveh by George Smith, the calculations of Prestwich and
others respecting the recency of the glacial period, and the historical
gatherings of Lenormant, we find ourselves drifting back to the faith
of our childhood, or may congratulate ourselves on having adhered to it
all along, even when the current of opinion tended strongly to turn us
away.
In illustration of the present aspects of the question I make two
extracts, one from Lenormant's _Beginnings of History_, another from a
recent work of my own.
'We are,' says Lenormant, 'in a position to affirm that the account of
the Deluge is a universal tradition in all branches of the human family,
with the sole exception of the black race, and a tradition every-*where
so exact and so concordant cannot possibly be referred to an imaginary
myth. No religious or cosmogonic myth possesses this character of
universality. It must necessarily be the reminiscence of an actual and
terrible event, which made so powerful an impression upon the
imaginations of the first parents of our species that their descendants
could never forget it. This cataclysm took place near the primitive
cradle of mankind, and previous to the separation of the families from
whom the principal races were to descend, for it would be altogether
contrary to probability and to the laws of sound criticism to admit that
local phenomena exactly similar in character could have been reproduced
at so many different points on the globe as would enable one to explain
these universal traditions, or that these traditions should always have
assumed an identical form, combined with circumstances which need not
necessarily have suggested themselves to the mind in such a
connection.'[37]
[37] _Les Origines de l'Histoire._ Brown's translation.
On the geological side, the following may be accepted as a summary of
facts:[38]
[38] _Modern Science in Bible Lands_, 1888, pp. 244, 245, 251, 252.
'If the earliest men were those of the river gravels and caves, men of
the mammoth age or of the palæolithic or palæocosmic period, we can form
some definite ideas as to their possible antiquity. They colonised the
continents immediately after the elevation of the land from the great
subsidence which closed the pleistocene or glacial period, or in what
has been called the "continental" period of the post-glacial age,
because the new lands then raised out of the sea exceeded in extent
those which we now have. We have some measures of the date of this great
continental elevation. Many years ago, Sir Charles Lyell used the
recession of the Falls of Niagara as a chronometer, estimating their
cutting power as equal to one foot per annum. He calculated the
beginning of the process, which dates from the post-glacial elevation,
to be about thirty thousand years ago. More recent surveys have shown
that the rate is three times as great as that estimated by Lyell, and
also that a considerable part of the gorge was merely cleaned out by the
river since the pleistocene age. In this way the age of the Niagara
gorge becomes reduced to perhaps seven or eight thousand years. Other
indications of similar bearing are found both in Europe and America,
and lead to the belief that it is physically impossible that man could
have colonised the northern hemisphere at an earlier date. These facts
render necessary an entire revision of the calculations based on the
growth of stalagmite in caves, and other uncertain data which have been
held to indicate a greater lapse of time.
'If we identify the antediluvians of Genesis with the oldest men known
to geological and archæological science, the parallelism is somewhat
marked in physical characteristics and habits of life, and also in their
apparently sudden and tragical disappearance from Europe and Western
Asia, along with several of the large mammalia which were their
contemporaries. If the Deluge is to be accepted as historical, and if a
similar great break interrupts the geological history of man, separating
extinct races from those which still survive, why may we not correlate
the two? If the Deluge was misused in the early history of geology, by
employing it to account for changes which took place long before the
advent of man, this should not cause us to neglect its legitimate uses,
with reference to the early human period. It is evident that if this
correlation be accepted as probable, it must modify many views now held
as to the antiquity of man. In that case the modern gravels and silts,
spread over the plateaus between the river valleys, will be accounted
for, not by any greater overflow of the existing streams, but by the
abnormal action of currents of water diluvial in their character.
Further, since the historical Deluge must have been of very limited
duration, the physical changes separating the deposits containing the
remains of palæocosmic men from those of later date would in like manner
be accounted for, not by the slow processes imagined by extreme
uniformitarians, but by causes of a more abrupt and cataclysmic
character.'[39]
[39] See also Howorth, _The Mammoth and the Flood_, and papers by
Professor Prestwich in _Journal Geol. Society_ and _Trans. Royal
Society_ and by Andrews, Winchell, and others in America.
We may proceed to inquire as to whether the position which we have now
reached is likely to be permanent, or may represent merely one shifting
phase of opinion. For this purpose we may formulate these conclusions in
a few general statements, merely referring to the evidence on which they
are based, as any complete discussion of this would necessarily be
impossible within the limits of this work. We may first summarise the
present position of the matter as indicated by historical and scientific
research, altogether independently of the Bible.[40]
[40] See articles by the author in _The Contemporary Review_, December
1889, and in _The Magazine of Christian Literature_, October 1890.
1. The recent discovery of the Chaldean deluge tablets has again
directed attention to the statements of Berosus respecting the
Babylonian tradition of a great flood, and these statements are found to
be borne out in the main by the contents of the tablets. There is thus a
twofold testimony as to the occurrence of a deluge in that Babylonian
plain which the Old Testament history represents as the earliest seat of
antediluvian man. As Lenormant has well shown, the tradition exists in
the ancient literature of India, Persia, Phœnicia, Phrygia, and Greece,
and can be recognised in the traditions of Northern and Western Europe
and of America, while the Egyptians had a similar account of the
destruction of men, but apparently not by water, though their idea
of a submerged continent of Atlantis probably had reference to the
antediluvian world. Thus we find this story widely spread over the
earth, and possessed by members of all the leading divisions of mankind.
This does not necessarily prove the universality of the Deluge, though
every distinct people naturally refers it to its own country. It shows,
however, the existence of some very early common source of the tradition,
and the variations are not more than were to have been expected in the
different of transmission.
2. Parallel with this historical evidence lies the result of geological
and archæological research, which has revealed to us the remains and
works of prehistoric men, racially distinct from those of modern times,
and who inhabited the earth at a period when its animal population was
to a great extent distinct from that at present existing, and when its
physical condition was also in many respects different. Thus in Europe
and Asia, and to some extent also in America, we have evidence that the
present races of men were preceded by others which have passed away, and
this at the same time with many important species of land animals, once
the contemporaries of man, but now known only as fossils. These ancient
men are those called by geologists later pleistocene, or post-glacial,
or the men of the cave and gravel deposits, or of the age of the
mammoth, and who have been designated by archæologists palæolithic men,
or, more properly, palæocosmic men, since the character of their stone
implements is only one not very important feature of their history, and
implements of the palæolithic type have been used in all periods, and
indeed are still used in some places.
3. The prevalence among geologists of an exaggerated and unreasonable
uniformitarianism, which refused to allow sufficient prominence to
sudden cataclysms arising from the slow accumulation of natural forces,
and which was a natural reaction from the convulsive geology of an
earlier period, has caused the idea to be generally entertained that the
age of palæocosmic men was of vast duration, and passed only by slow
gradations and a gradual transition into the new conditions of the
modern period. This view long was, and still is, an obstacle to any
rational correlation of the geological and traditional history of man.
Recently, however, new views have been forced on geologists, and have
led many of the most sagacious observers and reasoners to see that the
palanthropic period is much nearer to us than we had imagined. The
arguments for this I have referred to in previous pages, and need not
reiterate them, here. A few leading points may, however, be noted. One
of these is the small amount of physical or organic change which has
occurred since the close of the palanthropic period. Another is the more
rapid rate of erosion and deposition by rivers in the modern period than
had previously been supposed. Another is the striking fact that a large
number of mammals, like the mammoth and woolly rhinoceros, seem to have
perished simultaneously with the palæocosmic men, and this by some
sudden catastrophe.[41] It has also been shown by Pictet and Dawkins
that all the extant mammals of Europe already existed in the
post-glacial age, but along with many others now altogether or locally
extinct. Thus there seems to have been the removal over the whole
northern hemisphere of a number of the largest mammals, while a selected
number survived and no additions were made. Again, while at one time it
was supposed that the remains of palæocosmic man and his contemporaries
were confined to caverns and river alluvia, it is now known that they
occur also on high plateaus and water-sheds, in beds of gravel and silt
which must have been deposited there under conditions of submergence and
somewhat active current drift, perhaps in some cases aided by floating
ice.[42] Lastly, while, as must naturally be the case, in some places
the remains of ancient and more modern men are mixed, or seem to pass
into each other, in others, as in the Swiss, Belgian and Lebanon caves
and in the superficial deposits, there is a distinct separation,
implying an interval accompanied by physical change between the time of
the earlier and later men.
[41] Howorth, _The Mammoth and the Flood_.
[42] Prestwich on deposits at Ightham, Kent, _Journal Geological
Society_, May 1889.
Such considerations as these, the force of which is most strongly felt
by those best acquainted with the methods of investigation employed by
geologists and archæologists, are forcing us to conclude: (1) That there
are indicated in the latest geological formations two distinct human
periods, an earlier and a later, characterised by differences of faunæ
and of physical conditions, as well as by distinct races of men. (2)
That these two periods are separated by a somewhat rapid physical change
of the nature of submergence, or by a series of changes locally sudden
and generally not long-continued. (3) That it is not improbable that
this greatest of all revolutions in human affairs may be the same that
has so impressed itself on the memory of the survivors as to form the
basis of all the traditions and historical accounts of the Deluge.
This being the state of the case, it becomes expedient to review our
ideas of the ancient Hebrew records, from which our early, and perhaps
crude, impressions of this event were derived, and to ascertain how much
of our notions of the Deluge of Genesis may be fairly deduced from the
record itself, and how much may be due to more or less correct
interpretations, or to our own fancy. In connection with this we may
also be able to obtain some guidance as to the value to be attached to
the Hebrew document as a veritable and primitive record of the great
catastrophe.
The key to the understanding of the early human history of Genesis lies
in the story of the fall of man, and its sequel in the murder of Abel by
his brother Cain, the beginning of that reign of violence which endures
even to this day. From this arose the first division of the human race
into hostile clans or tribes, the races of Cain and Seth, on which
hinges the history, characteristics and fate of antediluvian man; and,
as we shall see in the sequel, from this arose profound differences in
religious beliefs, which have tinged the theology and superstitions of
all subsequent times. Of course, in making this statement I refer to the
history given in Genesis, without special reference to its intrinsic
truth or credibility, but merely in relation to its interpretation in
harmony with its own statements.
It is further evident that this tragic event must have occurred in that
Tigro-Euphratean region which was the Biblical site of Eden[43] and that
while the Sethite race presumably occupied the original home of Adam,
and adhered to that form of religion which is expressed in the worship
of Jahveh, the coming Redeemer and the expected 'Seed of the Woman,' the
other race spread itself more widely, probably attained to a higher
civilisation, in so far as art is concerned, in some of its divisions,
and sank to a deeper barbarism in others, while it retained the original
worship of God the Creator (Elohim). Hence the Sethite race is
designated as the sons of Adam (Beni ha Adam), the true and legitimate
children of the first man, and the Cainites as Beni Elohim, or sons of
God.[44] The mixture of these races produced the godless, heaven-defying
Nephelim, the Titans of the Old Testament, whose wickedness brought on
the diluvial catastrophe. These half-breeds of the antediluvian time
were in all probability the best developed, physically and perhaps
mentally, of the men of their period; and but for the Deluge they might
have become masters of the world.
[43] _Modern Science in Bible Lands_, chap. iv.
[44] That this is the true meaning of the expressions in Genesis vi. I
cannot doubt. See discussion of the subject in the work cited in
previous note.
This question of different races and religions before the Flood is,
however, deserving of a little farther elucidation. The names Elohim and
Jahveh are used conjointly throughout the Book of Genesis except in its
first chapter, and their mode of occurrence cannot be explained merely
on the theory of two documents pieced together by an editor. It has a
deeper significance than this, and one which indicates a radical
diversity between Elohists and Jahvists even in this early period. In
the earliest part of the human history, as distinguished from the
general record of creation, the two names are united in the compound
Jahveh-Elohim, but immediately after the fall Eve is represented as
attributing to, or identifying with, Jahveh alone the birth of her
eldest son--'I have produced a man, the Jahveh,' and which may mean that
she supposed Cain to be the promised manifestation of God as the
Redeemer. Accordingly Cain and Abel are represented as offering
sacrifice to Jahveh, and yet it is said in a verse which must be a part
of the same document, that it was not till the time of Enos, a grandson
of Adam, that men began to invoke the name of Jahveh. It would seem also
that this invocation of Jahveh was peculiar to the Sethites, and that
the Cainites were still worshippers of Elohim, the God of nature and
creation, a fact which perhaps has relation to the so-called physical
religion of some ancient peoples. Hence their title of Beni ha Elohim.
Thus the division between the Cainite and Sethite races early became
accentuated by a sectarian distinction as well. We may imagine that the
Cainites, worshipping God as Creator, and ignoring that doctrine of a
Redeemer which seemed confined to the rival race of Seth, were the
deists of their time, and held a position which might, according
to culture and circumstances, degenerate into a polytheistic
nature-worship, or harden into an absolute materialism. On the other
hand, the Sethites, recognised by the author of Genesis as the orthodox
descendants of Adam, and invoking Jahveh, held to the promise of a
coming Saviour, and to a deliverance from the effects of the Fall to be
achieved by His means.
It is clear that, from the point of view of the author of Genesis, the
chosen seed of Seth should have maintained their separation from a
wicked world. Their failure to do this involves them in the wrath of
Jahveh and renders the destruction of mankind necessary, and in this the
whole Godhead under its combined aspects of Elohim and Jahveh takes a
part. A similar view has caused the Chaldean narrator to invoke the aid
of all the gods in his pantheon to effect the destruction of man.
These considerations farther throw light on the double character of the
Deluge narrative in Genesis, which has induced those ingenious scholars
who occupy themselves with analysis or disintegration of the Pentateuch
to affirm two narratives, one Elohist and one Jahvist.[45] Whatever
value may attach to this hypothesis, it is evident that if the history
is thus made up of two documents it gains in value, since this would
imply that the editor had at his disposal two chronicles embodying the
observations of two narrators, possibly of different sects, if these
differences were perpetuated in the postdiluvian world; and farther,
that he is enabled to affirm that the catastrophe affected both the
great races of men. It farther would imply that these early documents
were used by the writer to produce his combined narrative almost without
change of diction, so that they remain in their original form of the
alleged testimony of eye-witnesses, a peculiarity which attaches also to
the Chaldean version, as this purports to be in the form given by
Hasisadra, the Chaldean Noah, himself.[46]
[45] See, for a very clear statement of these views, Professor Green in
_Hebraica_, January 1889, along with Dr. Harper's _résumé_ of the
Pentateuchal criticism in the previous number.
[46] Translation of G. Smith and others. With reference to the
preservation of this and the Hebrew narrative in writing, we should bear
in mind that writing was an art well known in Chaldea and Egypt
immediately after the Deluge, or at least between 2000 and 3000 B.C.,
and that the Chaldean narrator speaks of documents hidden by Noah at
Sippara before the Deluge.
Let us now inquire into the physical aspects of the Deluge, as they are
said to have presented themselves to the ancient witness or witnesses to
whom we owe the Biblical account of the catastrophe, and endeavour to
ascertain if they have any agreement with the conditions of the great
post-glacial Deluge of geology. Let it be observed here that we are
dealing not with prehistoric events but with a written history, supposed
by some to have been compiled from two contemporary documents, and
corroborated by the testimony of the ancient Chaldean tablets copied by
the scribes of Assurbanipal, apparently from different originals,
preserved in very ancient Chaldean temples.
The preparation of an ark or ship, and the accommodation therein, not
only of Noah and his family, but of a certain number of animals, is a
feature in which most Deluge narratives agree. This implies a
considerable advance in the arts of construction and navigation, but not
more than we have a right to infer from the perfection of these arts in
early postdiluvian times, when it can scarcely be supposed that the new
communities of men had fully regained the position of their ancestors
before the destruction caused by the great Flood. Lenormant, however,
remarks here:
'The Biblical narrative bears the stamp of an inland nation, ignorant of
things appertaining to navigation. In Genesis the name of the ark,
Têbâh, signifies "chest," and not "vessel"; and there is nothing said
about launching the ark on the water; no mention either of the sea, or
of navigation, or any pilot. In the Epopee of Uruk, on the other hand,
everything indicates that it was composed among a maritime people; each
circumstance reflects the manners and customs of the dwellers on the
shores of the Persian Gulf. Hasisadra goes on board a vessel, distinctly
alluded to by its appropriate appellation; this ship is launched, and
makes a trial-trip to test it: all its chinks are calked with bitumen,
and it is placed under the charge of a pilot.'
This remark, which I find made by other commentators as well, suggests,
it seems to me, somewhat different conclusions. The Hebrews when
settled, either in Egypt or in Canaan, were near to the sea-coast, and
familiar with boats and with the ships of the Phœnicians. If, therefore,
they persisted in calling Noah's ark a 'chest,' it must have been from
unwillingness to change an old history derived from their Chaldean or
Mesopotamian ancestors, or because they continued to regard the ark as
rather a great box than a ship properly so called. On the other hand, it
is likely that the particulars in the Chaldean account came from later
manipulation of the narrative, after commerce and navigation on the
Euphrates and Persian Gulf had become familiar to the Chaldeans. Thus in
this as in other respects the Hebrew narrative is the more primitive of
the two, and is consistent with the necessity of Divine instructions to
Noah, which, if he had been familiar with navigation, would not have
been necessary.[47]
[47] See also the evidence of an inland position of the writers in the
record of creation in Genesis i., as stated in my work cited in previous
note.
As in the Chaldean version, the Biblical history begins with the
specification of the ark. On this (Elohist) portion it is only necessary
to say that the dimensions of the ark are large and well adapted to
stowage rather than to speed, and that within it was strengthened by
three decks and by a number of bulkheads, or partitions, separating the
rooms or berths into which it was divided. Without, it was protected and
rendered tight by coats of resinous or asphaltic varnish (_copher_), and
it was built of the lightest and most durable kind of wood (gopher or
cypress). Only two openings are mentioned, a hatch or window above, and
a port or door in the side. There is no mention of any masts, rigging,
or other means of propulsion or steerage. The Chaldean history differs
in introducing a steersman, thus implying the means of propulsion as in
an actual ship.
Noah is instructed, in addition to his own family, to provide for
animals, two of every kind; but these very general terms are afterwards
limited by the words _uph_, _bemah_, and _remesh_, which define birds,
cattle, and small quadrupeds as those specially intended. Noah's ark was
not a menagerie, but rather like a cattle-ship, capable perhaps of
accommodating as many animals as one of those steamers which now
transfer to England the animal produce of Western fields and prairies.
The animals portrayed on the ancient monuments of Egypt and Assyria,
however, inform us that, in early post-diluvial times, and therefore
probably also in the time of Noah, a greater variety of animals were
under the control of man than is the case in any one country at
present.[48] In the passage referring to the embarkation, only the
cattle and fowls are mentioned, but seven pairs are to be taken of the
clean species which could be used as food.[49] The embarkation having
been completed on the very day when the Deluge commenced, we have next
the narrative of the Flood itself. Here it is noteworthy that God
(Elohim) makes the arrangements, and Jahveh shuts the voyagers in.
[48] Houghton, _Natural History of the Ancients_, and _Transactions of
the Society of Biblical Archæology_; also representations of tame
antelopes, &c., on Egyptian monuments.
[49] This has been considered a later addition; but the practice of all
primitive peoples has sanctioned the distinction of clean and unclean
beasts, which is merely defined in the Mosaic law, not instituted for
the first time.
The first note that our witness enters in his 'log' relates to his
impressions of the causes of the catastrophe, which was not effected
supernaturally, but by natural causes. These are the 'breaking up of the
fountains of the great deep' and the 'opening of the windows of heaven.'
These expressions must be interpreted in accordance with the use of
similar terms in the account of creation in Genesis i., the more so that
this statement is a portion regarded by the composite theory as
Elohistic. On this principle of interpretation, the great deep is that
universal ocean which prevailed before the elevation of the dry land,
and the breaking up of its fountains is the removal of that restriction
placed upon it when its waters were gathered together into one place. In
other words, the meaning is the invasion of the land by the ocean. In
like manner, the windows of heaven, the cloudy reservoirs of the
atmospheric expanse, or possibly waterspouts, or even volcanic
eruptions, and not necessarily identical with the great rain extending
for forty days, as stated in the following clause. The Chaldean record
adds the phenomena of thunder and tempest, but omits the great deep; an
indication that it is an independent account, and by a less informed or
less intelligent narrator. It is worthy of note that our narrator has no
idea of any river inundation in the case.
At this stage we are brought into the presence of the question: Is the
Deluge represented as a miraculous or a merely natural phenomenon? Yet,
from a scientific point of view, this question has not the significance
usually attributed to it. True miracles are not, and cannot be,
contraventions or violations of God's natural laws. They are merely
unusual operations of natural powers under their proper laws, but
employed by the Almighty for effecting spiritual ends. Thus, naturally,
they are under the laws of the material world, but, spiritually, they
belong to a higher sphere. In the present case, according to the
narrative in Genesis, the Flood was physically as much a natural
phenomenon as the earthquakes at Ischia, or the eruption of Krakatoa. It
was a miraculous or spiritual intervention only in so far as it was
related to the destruction of an ungodly race, and as it was announced
beforehand by a prophet. Had the approaching eruption of Krakatoa been
intended as a judgment on the wicked, and had it been revealed to anyone
who had taken pains to warn his countrymen and then to provide for his
own safety, this would have given to that eruption as much of a
miraculous character as the Bible attaches to the Deluge. In the New
Testament, where we have more definite information as to miracles, they
are usually called 'powers' and 'signs,' less prominence being given to
the mere wonder which is implied in the term 'miracle.' Under the aspect
of _powers_, they imply that the Creator can do many things beyond our
power and comprehension, just as in a lesser way a civilised man, from
his greater knowledge of natural laws and command over natural energies,
can do much that is incomprehensible to a savage; and in this direction
science teaches us that, given an omnipotent God, the field of miracle
is infinite. As _signs_, on the other hand, such displays of power
connect themselves with the moral and spiritual world, and become
teachers of higher truths and proofs of Divine interference. The true
position of miracles as signs is remarkably brought out in that argument
of Christ, in which He says, 'If ye believe not My words, believe Me for
the works' sake.' It is as if a civilised visitor to some barbarous
land, who had been describing to an incredulous audience the wonders of
his own country, were to exhibit to them a watch or a microscope, and
then to appeal to them that these were things just as mysterious and
incredible as those of which he had been speaking.
Returning to the Deluge, we may observe that such an invasion of the
great deep is paralleled by many of which geology presents to us the
evidence, and that our knowledge of nature enables us to conceive of the
possibility of greater miracles of physical change than any on record,
such as, for instance, the explosion of the earth itself into an
infinity of particles, the final extinction of the solar heat, or the
accession to this heat of such additional fierceness as to burn up the
attendant planets. All this might take place without any interference
with God's laws, but merely by correlations and adjustments of them, as
much within His power as the turning on or stopping of a machine is in
the power of a human engineer. Further, such acts of Divine power may be
related to moral and spiritual things, just as easily as any outward
action resulting from our own will may be determined by moral
considerations. The time is past when any rational objection can be made
on the part of science to the so-called miracles of the Bible.
To return to the passengers in the ark. This must have been built on
high ground, or the progress of the Deluge must have been slow, for
forty days elapsed before the waters reached the ship and floated it. It
is not unlikely that the ark was built on rising ground, for here
supplies of timber would be nearer. It has puzzled some simple
antiquarians to find dug-out canoes of prehistoric date on the tops of
hills; but they did not reflect that the maker of a canoe would
construct his vessel where the suitable wood could be found, since it
would be much easier to carry the finished canoe to the shore than to
drag thither the solid log out of which it was to be fashioned. So Noah
would naturally build his ark where the wood he required could be
procured most easily. The Chaldean narrator seems to have overlooked
this simple consideration, for he mentions a launching and trial-trip of
the ship, a sure mark that he is a later authority than the writer in
Genesis.
The inmates of the ark now felt that it was moving on the waters, a new
and dread sensation which must have deeply impressed their minds, and
they soon became aware that the ark not merely floated, but 'went,' or
made progress in some definite direction. Remark the simple yet
significant notes--'The ark was lift up from the earth,' and 'the ark
went upon the face of the waters.' The direction of driftage is not
stated, but it is a fair inference, from the probable place of departure
in Chaldea and that of final grounding of the ark, that it was northward
or inland, which would indicate that the chief supply of water was from
the Indian Ocean, and that it was flowing inward toward the great sunken
plain of interior Asia, which, however, the ark did not reach, but
grounded in the hilly region known to the Hebrews as Ararat, to the
Chaldeans as Nisr. A curious statement is made here (Elohist) as to the
depth of the water being fifteen cubits. Even in a flat country so small
a depth would not cover the rising grounds; but this is obviously not
the meaning of the narrator, but something much more sensible and
practical. It is not unlikely that the measure stated was the
water-draught of the loaded ark, and that as the voyagers felt it rise
and fall on the waves, they may have experienced some anxiety lest it
should strike and go to pieces. It was no small part of the providential
arrangement in their case that in the track of the ark everything was
submerged more than fifteen cubits before they reached it. Hence this
note, which is at the same time one of the criteria of the simple
veracity of the history. The only other remark in this part of the
narrative relates to the entire submergence of the whole country within
sight, and the consequent destruction of animal life; and here the
enumeration covers all land animals, and the terms used are thus more
general than those applied to the animals preserved in the ark. The
Deluge culminated, in so far as our narrator observed, in one hundred
and fifty days.
His next experience is of a gale of wind, accompanied or followed by
cessation of the rain and of the inflow of the oceanic waters.[50] The
waters then decreased, not regularly, but by an intermittent process,
'going and returning'; but whether this was a tidal phenomenon or of the
nature of earthquake waves we have no information. At length the ark
grounded, apparently on high ground or in thick weather, for no land was
visible; but at length, after two months, neighbouring hill-tops were
seen.
[50] Genesis viii. 1, 2: 'And Elohim made a wind to pass over the earth,
and the waters abated,' &c.
The incident of sending out birds to test the recession of the waters
deserves notice, because of its apparently trivial nature, because it
appears with variations in the Chaldean account, and because it has been
treated in a remarkably unscientific manner by some critics. It
indicates the uncertainty which would arise in the mind of the patriarch
because of the fluctuating decrease of the waters, and possibly also a
misty condition of the air preventing a distinct view of distant
objects. The birds selected for the purpose were singularly appropriate.
The raven is by habit a wanderer, and remarkable for power of flight
and clearness of distant vision. So long, therefore, as it made the ark
its headquarters, 'going and returning'[51] from its search for food, it
might be inferred that no habitable land was accessible. The dove, sent
out immediately after the raven,[52] is of a different habit. It could
not act as a scavenger of the waters and go and return, but could leave
only if it found land covered with vegetation. As a domesticated bird
also, it would naturally come back to be taken into the ark. Hence it
was sent forth at intervals of seven days, returning with an olive leaf
when it found tree tops above the water, and remaining away when it
found food and shelter. The Chaldean account adds a third bird, the
swallow--a perfectly useless addition, since this bird, if taken into
the ark at all, would from its habits of life be incapable of affording
any information. This addition is a mark of interpolation in the
Chaldean version, and proceeded perhaps from the sacred character
attached by popular superstition to the swallow, or from the familiar
habits of the bird suggesting to some later editor its appropriateness.
Singularly enough, the usually judicious Schrader, probably from
deficient knowledge of the habits of birds, fails to appreciate all
this, and after a long discussion prefers the Babylonian legend for
reasons of a most unscientific character, actually condemning the
perfectly natural and clear Biblical story as artificial and due to a
recent emendation. He says: 'When the story passed over to the Hebrews,
the name of the swallow has disappeared,' and 'it is only from the
Babylonian narrative that the selection of the different birds becomes
clear.' This little disquisition of Schrader is, indeed, one of the most
amusing instances of that inversion of sound criticism which results
when unscientific commentators tamper with the plain statements of
truthful and observant witnesses.
[51] Margin of Authorised Version; less fully, 'to and fro' in the text.
[52] There is no reason to suppose, as some have done, a hiatus here in
the narrative.
The uncertainty indicated by the mission of the birds seems to have
continued from the first day of the tenth to the first day of the first
month, when Noah at length ventured to remove the covering of the ark
and inspect the condition of the surrounding country, now abandoned by
the waters, but not thoroughly dried for some time longer. Still, so
timid was the patriarch that he did not dare without a special command
to leave his place of safety. I am aware that if the two alleged
documents are arbitrarily separated it is possible to see here some
apparent contradiction in dates; but this is not necessary if we leave
them in their original relation.[53]
[53] See Green, _Hebraica, l. c._
It will be observed that a narrative such as that summarised above bears
unmistakably stamped upon it the characteristics of the testimony of an
eye-witness. By whomsoever reduced to writing and finally edited, it
must, if genuine, have come down nearly in its present form from the
time of the catastrophe which it relates. It follows that the narrator
leaves no place for the current questions as to the universality of the
Deluge. It was universal so far as his experience extended, but that is
all. He is not responsible for what occurred beyond the limits of his
observation and beyond the fact that man, so far as known to him,
perished. If, therefore, as some have held,[54] Balaam in his prophecy
refers to Cainite populations as extant in his time, or if Moses
declines to trace to any of the postdiluvian patriarchs the Rephaim,
Emim, Zuzim and other prehistoric peoples of Palestine, we may infer,
without any contradiction of our narrative, that there were surviving
antediluvians other than the Noachidæ, whatever improbability may attach
to this on other grounds, and more especially from the now ascertained
extension of the post-glacial submergence over nearly all parts of the
northern hemisphere.
[54] Motais, _Déluge Biblique_.
Let it also be noticed that beyond the prophetic intimation to Noah, and
the one expression, Jahveh 'shut him in,' which may refer merely to
providential care, there is, as already remarked, nothing miraculous, in
the popular sense of that term; and that mythical elements, such as
those introduced into the Babylonian narrative, are altogether absent.
The story relates to plain matters of fact, which, if they happened at
all, any one might observe, and for the proof of which any ordinary
testimony would be sufficient. It may be profitable, however, to revert
here to the probable relation of this narrative to the geological facts
already adverted to, and also its bearing on the mythical and
polytheistic additions which we find in the Deluge stories of heathen
nations.
Regarding the Biblical Deluge as a record of a submergence of a vast
region of Eur-Asia and Northern Africa, at least, while no similar
catastrophe has been recorded subsequently, it is unquestionable that
submergences equally important have occurred again and again in the
geological history of our continents, and have been equally destructive
of animal life. It is true that most of these are believed to have been
of more slow and gradual character than that recorded in Genesis, but in
the case of many of them this is a very uncertain inference from the
analogy of modern changes; and it is certain that the post-glacial
submergence, which closed the era of palæocosmic man and his companion
animals, must have been one of the most transient on record. On the
other hand, we need not limit the entire duration of the Noachic
submergence to the single year whose record has been preserved to us.
Local subsidence may have been in progress throughout the later
antediluvian age, and the experience of the narrator in Genesis may have
related only to its culmination in the central district of human
residence. Finally, if man was really a witness of this last great
continental submergence, we cannot be too thankful that there were so
intelligent witnesses to preserve the record of the event for our
information.
It is needless, then, to enter into further details, though these are
sufficient to fill volumes if desired, in proof of the remarkable
convergence of history and geological discovery on the great Flood,
which now constitutes one of the most remarkable illustrations of the
points of contact of science proceeding on its own methods of
investigation and Divine revelation, preserving the records of ancient
events otherwise lost or buried under accretions of myth and fancy. I
have already endeavoured to show that the earliest race of palæocosmic
men, that of Canstadt, very fairly corresponds with what may have been
the characteristics of the ruder tribes of Cainites, and that if we
regard the Truchère skull as representing the Sethite people, we may
suppose the Cro-magnon race to represent the giants, or Nephelim, who
sprung from the union of the two pure types. I have also referred to the
possibility that the Truchère race, so little known to us as yet, may
have been a prot-Iberian people, possessing even before the Flood
domestic animals, agriculture, and some of the arts of life,
corresponding to what we find in the earliest postdiluvian nations. This
is, indeed, implied in the fact that the postdiluvian nations present
themselves to us at once with a somewhat advanced condition of the arts,
especially in Chaldea and in Egypt. Such possibilities may serve to
suggest to speculative archæologists that they cannot safely assume
that all antediluvian or palæolithic tribes were barbarous or
semi-brutal, or that there was a continuous development of humanity
without any diluvial catastrophe. It is also somewhat rash to carry back
the chronology of Egyptians and Babylonians to times when, as we know on
physical evidence, the Valley of the Nile was an arm of the sea, and the
plain of the Euphrates an extension of the Persian Gulf. It is fortunate
for the Bible that such assumptions are not required by its history.