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 ?tna 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 ?tna, 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 supernatural 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.