THE NOACHIAN DELUGE.

 LECTURE BY DR. ROHNER.

The first of the winter course of lectures in aid of the Wangaratta Athenæum was delivered on Friday evening by Dr. Rohner, of Chiltern, who selected for his subject " The Noachian Deluge, viewed in the light of modern science and criticism."

 The lecturer alluded in the first place to the theory of the literal inspiration of the Bible, and said "in nursery, school and pulpit professed Christians are still taught that a denial of this assertion (literal inspiration) is rank infidelity, heresy and atheism. He who dares to doubt that the Bible teaches correct astronomy, geology, history and geography, is still denounced as a heretic by the pretended leaders of Christian thought, with the same amount of acrimony and vehemence as was Galileo, the discoverer of Jupiter's satellites, by the Holy Office. Notwithstanding the marvellous discoveries of modern science, and the flood of light let in thereby ; in spite of a more liberal interpretation and criticism of the literatures of all ancient religions, "we are still expected to believe that man was created in some fancy place in Central Asia, called Eden; that there were men in those primitive days, so-called Patriarchs, who lived to the age of upwards of a thousand years ; and that the same Jehovah who after the creation of man pronounced this work as " good," nevertheless repented again in the days of Noah, and in His almighty wrath determined to destroy the whole human race by an universal flood. Although science has long ago disproved the unity of the human race ; although physiologists have established the fact that an advancing civilisation is the best guarantee for a higher average of human life ; yet, not withstanding these facts, the book which contradicts and denounces the triumphant and laborious results of modern science is still forced upon us as an inspired and infallible work, unparalleled in the literature of all ages. It is held blasphemous to suggest that the Persians, the Chaldeans, the Brahmins, the Egyptians, and the Mahometans had and still have sacred works similar to our venerable Bible, and that these works are held to be equally inspired and infallible by a far larger number of believers than the ranks of Christianity are able to muster. We are placing ourselves outside the pale of Christianity if we look upon those precious relics of what we are pleased to term pagan religious literature as at all analogous productions to our sacred writings. The Zendavesta, the Vedas, the Shaster, the Koran, though recognised and highly esteemed by large numbers of devotees as their holy writ, as their text books of religious instruction, we are not even allowed to rank as qualitatively similar works to our Bible. Our idolatrous worship of the book has brought a majority of Christians to believe that the Bible is altogether an exceptional work — the exclusive work of God, and as such it is considered blasphemous to examine or call in question any statements whatsoever made in its pages from Genesis i. to the last of Revelations. We must either believe in the literal truth of all its writings, or be excommunicated and anathematised. Without waiting to face so formidable an alternative, I shall venture in this evening's discourse a brief and impartial examination of the most prominent details of that beautiful legend generally known as the " Flood of Noah." Dr Rohner then gave a succinct account of the Biblical narrative, remarking at its conclusion, " such is the simple succession of ideas in this narrative, which is finished in the graphic style of a painter who dipped his brushes into the glowing and gorgeous colors of an Oriental imagination." The lecturer then proceeded: — " In chapter vi. verse 7,the Lord says, ' I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth : both man and beast and creeping things, and fowls of the air ; for it repenteth me that I have made them.' It is somewhat singular why the fishes in the waters were exempted from, this wholesale destruction, as if is hard to see why a voracious shark should be dealt with more leniently than an innocent dove. I suppose the miracle of drowning fish in water would not have found credence even in the credulous days of old Noah. But what is still more singular than this exemption of the fishes from destruction is, the contradiction of this very threat of extermination in one and the same breath, by giving the pious Noah a distinct and positive order to build an ark, in which to save, not only himself and his family, but representatives of all the beasts of the earth and the fowls of the air, and, as the text has it, ' to keep them alive.' This killing with one hand, and saving with the other, is a mark of indecision of character which only the man of a rude age could attribute to the Deity. The train of ideas here is so obviously anthropomorphous that the human nature of the penman of these passages can by no means be mistaken." After criticising the ark, its shape and unadaptability, the lecturer assumed the ark to be finished and " ready to take in her cargo of eight human passengers and a complete menagerie of all the animals of this earth, from a mosquito to an elephant, including 12 months' provisions for the lot. Imagine then this enormous task, to collect from all parts of the world seven pairs of clean and two of unclean beasts. To carry out this properly there would be required an immense number of paid agents all over the world to collect and bring to Noah, say the ice-bear from the polar regions, the lion from Africa, the elephant from India, the giraffe from Nubia, the kangaroo from Australia, the condor from America, the gigantic eagle from the Swiss Alps, and all the poisonous snakes, reptiles, and other vermin from every nook and corner of the globe." Dr Rohner then at some length proceeded to criticise and show the utter unreliability of statements contained in a work by the Rev. Joseph Baylee, D.D., which professed to explain all about the ark and its inhabitants. The book, he said, was written upon a plan common among theologians who assume the truth of a statement first, and then endeavour to prove it by unsupportable evidence. After dealing with Dr Baylee, the lecturer went on to the statement contained in Genesis i. 11. " Here we have a fine specimen of Hebrew meteorology in a poetical garb, about which it does not matter whether it be regarded as inspired truth or literal truth, for neither view can make the extravagant statements made in these passages convey the slightest amount of truth. In close connection with the forty days and nights' rain is the rising of the ark fifteen cubits above the highest mountains of the earth, or, as the text has it, Genesis vii. 20, "fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered." This is an enormous rainfall ; indeed, a rainfall that would set all the rain gauges of the meteorologists at naught. On the Malabar coast of the East Indian Peninsular, at 11 deg. 30 min. from the equator, the fall of rain in a year amounts to 123 inches, or to a lake of water 10 feet deep ! But what is this, the highest known rainfall on the globe, in comparison with the rise of the waters of the Noachian flood. If, in the days of Noah, the mountains of the earth were of the same size as they are now, and if the Hebrew cubit is taken for 18 inches, the waters must have stood exactly 29,024 ft. 6 in. above the level of the sea, for Mount Everest is put down at 29,002 ft. above the level of the sea. According to Buchan's work on meteorology, the following are a few of the most remarkable quantities of rain which have been accurately recorded : — "At Joyeuse, in France, 31.19 in. in twenty-two hours ; at Geneva, 30 in. in twenty- four hours; at Gibraltar, 33 in. in twenty-six hours; on the hills above Bombay, 24 in. in one night ; and on the Khasia Hills, north-west of Calcutta, 30 in. on each of five successive days." " So far as we know," says the same author, " the heaviest annual rainfall at any place on the globe is 600 in. on the Khasia Hills, 500 in. of which fell in seven months during south-west monsoons." Now, taking the most favorable view of the case, and assuming that it rained during those forty days and nights at the rate of 48 in. during each twenty-four hours, as it did in Bombay for but one night, we only obtain a rainfall of 1920 in., or about 160 ft. — not water enough for the Himalayan Mountains to take a footbath in. The above examination will show you on how frail a foundation stands the assertion of orthodox divines ; that all the statements contained in the Bible are literally true." The lecturer then quoted James Heywood and Dr. Pye Smith with reference to the extraordinary and childish ideas prevalent in ancient times as to atmospherical phenomena, to the atmosphere and the shape of the earth, their utter ignorance of meteorology, &c., all demonstrating their inability of understanding, and consequently correctly interpreting the phenomena of nature. After a rapid sketch of modern scientific teaching as regards meteorology, the lecturer proceeded : " We said above that the ark had neither rudder nor sails, but we cannot find fault with the architect on this account, as he evidently must have foreseen the event of the ark sticking in an ocean of permanent ice 15 cubic feet above the highest mountain, where sails and a rudder would have been worse than useless. What Noah did at this time for water has remained an enigma since ; for if it could have rained at an altitude of 30,000 feet above the level of the sea, it would have rained rocks of ice large enough to break up the strongest iron-clad, let alone an unwieldly chest built of pine or gopher wood."

Ovens and Murray Advertiser (Beechworth, Vic.), Monday 22 July 1872, page 2

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/196858735

"I may in this place also mention the fact that a similar chest was built in the beginning of the seventeenth century by Janson, a Dutch shipwright, according to the measurement of the ark, but although it was covered with pitch, inside and outside, it went to pieces immediately, and since then I am not sure that any shipbuilding firm tried the same experiment again. But to return to our subject. We know that the capacity of the atmosphere for the supply of rain is so limited that according to the calculations of Bergbares and Johnston in their rain gauges of the world, the total average fall of rain in a year over the whole globe is only five feet in depth. But enormous as the quantity of water already is, which we assumed covered the land, it would have, nevertheless, required four times that quantity ; for unless the water stood up like a wall around the shores of the ocean, as it did sometime after during the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, it would have been impossible for the floods to rise to a height of 29,024 feet and 6 inches, without the level of the oceans being swelled to the same extent. In either case, I ask where did all this water come from ? This was a species of creation of water which did not previously exist on the globe. And, again, after it had served its purpose of drowning all men with the rest of crawling creatures, where did the water go to ? for it is evident it could not have returned again through ' the windows of heaven,' otherwise we would not have had the grand spectacle which concludes this tragedy — the rainbow — because the sun would have been covered by clouds thousands of miles thick, in order to hold, in the form of gas or vapor, such a mass of water. You may remember that the first question, where the waters came from ? was satisfactorily answered by the celebrated Whiston, who asserts that the earth must, at the time of the Flood, have passed through the tail of a comet, and that its contact with the earth dissolved the cometary vapor or matter into water; but he forgets to account afterwards for the disappearance of the liquid element when it was no longer required. But let us hear the testimony of the most sensible and least-bigoted English divine — Dr. Pay Smith. He remarks with respect to the supply of rain, that 'If we were to imagine the air to be first saturated with moisture to the utmost extent of its capacity, and then to discharge the whole quantity, it would bear a very inconsiderable proportion to the entire surface of the globe ; a few inches of depth would be its utmost extent. ' It is indeed the fact,' continues the same learned divine in his work ' On the relation between Holy Scripture and some parts of Geological Science,' that upon a small area of the earth's surface, yet the most extensive that comes within experience or natural possibility, heavy and continuous rain for a few days often produces effects fearfully destructive by swelling the streams and rivers of that district, but the laws of Nature as to evaporation, and the capacity of atmospheric air to hold water in solution render such a state of things over the whole globe not merely improbable but absolutely impossible.' But without attempting to enter into a minute examination verse by verse of the whole account of the Noachian Deluge, an examination moreover which the further you proceed with it seriously, and taking it in good earnest for literal truth, the more you get disgusted with the task, I shall at once, and without piling on the critical agony proceed to the conclusion of the narrative, Genesis viii. 18 and 19, where it says ' And Noah went forth, and his wife and sons and sons' wives with him ; every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.' Now, it is very easy for the writer of this chapter, inspired or uninspired, to say that Noah, in company with his family and his zoological exhibition, went forth out of the ark on a certain day, but it is not quite so easy to conceive what he and his animal companions had to live on immediately after they landed; for, in harmony with the Biblical narrative, we must assume that their twelve months' stock of provisions was used up during the sea voyage, and that the surface of the earth after the flood must have been entirely destitute of all vegetation or any other kind of food. But, even supposing Noah to have had plenty of food for himself and his motley stock of animals, it is difficult to comprehend how he could, with only eight hands at his disposal; manage to send all the beasts back to their original climates and habitations — the polar bear to Siberia, the lion into the desert of Sahara, the kangaroo to Australia, the dodo to New Zealand, the tiger and elephant to India, the ourang-outang to Bornea, the gorilla to Equatorial Africa, the condor to the Andes, &c. ; for surely all these animals could not have found the climate of the slope of Mount Ararat, wherever that mountain was, suitable to the requirements of their organisations and constitutions, even if we were to allow that the carnivorous animals resumed the peaceful and accommodating habits possessed by them in Eden, and did not interfere with lambs, kids, hares, and other equally harmless and defenceless creatures whom it must have been the plan of Jehovah to protect with as much care as the leopard, the wolf, and the hyæna. But, enough ! Let us close the Book of Books with this last illustration of the insurmountable difficulties and obstacles to a literal interpretation of the historical truth of the Noachian Deluge, and let us instead proceed to examine one or two of the most ancient parallel accounts of the hypothetical cataclysm in order to see which is the original and which the copy. It is not a little curious that of all mythological tales and legends there is not a single one which, in its principal outline and features, is so common amongst the most divers nations of the earth as is the mythical account of an universal deluge.

 The Hindoos, the Chaldeans, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Peruvians, the Brazilians, the Mexicans, the original inhabitants of Cuba, &c., &c., have all their own particular version, with a locally different coloring of a catastrophe similar to that known to us under the name of the Deluge of Noah. This fact can only be satisfactorily explained on the ground that local inundations led the several peoples to generalize the idea to the extent of an universal cataclysm — and after all, it cannot be considered so very wonderful that similar impressions should produce similar effects on similarly constituted mental organisations. The only infallible revelation made to all men alike is the revelation of the phenomena of nature. It is this sacred Book of Nature which exhibits the glory of the Unnameable One in every page with such surpassing power and beauty, and not the barren theological incrustations of dogmas and anthropomorphous creeds contained in what is generally termed sacred literature. Religions are neither contained in, nor dictated by, books, no matter how ancient. They originated from, and are based on, the ever present emotional element of our minds; they spring invariably from the fresh and warm well of the human heart itself. History teaches us plainly that all nations were in their infancy addicted to fetishism and polytheism, because their childish minds could not grasp the one in the many aspects of nature ; every physical phenomenon had its own divinity, and it was at a very late period that mankind arrived at a knowledge of one God ; and from this rule the Jews, the chosen of Jehovah, make no exception, as their own sacred books abundantly prove. But, to return to our subject, it has been settled by the best critical talent of modern days, that of all the Asiatic legends of the flood, the most ancient, and, so to speak, the prototype of them, is that of the Hindoos."

 The lecturer related the Hindoo story of the flood as contained in the epic poem Mahabarata, and compared it with the narrative in Manu Satya, referred to the Chaldean legend of the deluge, and endeavored to show that the latter had furnished the basis of the Hebrew account, having been transplanted to Canaanitish soil, and accommodated to Jewish requirements. He asserted " that the best Biblical scholars of Germany are unanimous that the origin of this Biblical legend does not date farther back than the period of the Babylonish exile." In connection with this, the lecturer quoted a remarkable passage from the first book, sec. 19, of Flavius Josephus' controversial essay against Apion, relative to the antiquity of the Jews, and attempted to prove that the Jews had borrowed the " legend of the flood" from the Chaldeans, and that they had adopted it for their own purposes, with only a slight alteration of names. After stating that time would not allow him to bring before his audience a great number of facts bearing on the narrative in question, such as matters of chronology, the Babylonish solar and lunar years, the geographical position of the scene, etc., the lecturer went on to say :—' Only one more remark, and I have done. As I may have been considered by some to have, perhaps, too freely adopted and used a method of interpreting Scripture, in dealing with the legend of the Noachian deluge, greatly at variance with the orthodox and stereotyped commentaries in the Bible of a Kitto and a Scott, &c., I desire, in conclusion, and before I take final leave of my subject to draw your attention to a very important point with respect to the proper method of interpreting the so-called Sacred Scriptures, that point being, never to lose sight of the fact that the Bible has been thoroughly proved to be the unmistakeable work of human hands as much as any other book that was ever written; that of that book we have neither a complete manuscript by the pretended original authors of the different component parts, nor a correct text of the whole work with the Divine stamp of infallibility on its title-page ; not to speak of the almost countless errors which are contained in the translations into modern languages, which are circulated in thousands of copies amongst the unlearned and blindly-believing masses as the only true Word of God, and that whilst the number and selection of the Canonical books vary with the various Christian sects, all claiming to present the only true copy of the Word of God, it is extremely difficult, if not altogether impossible to arrive at a satisfactory decision between the contending parties. I have, therefore, for my own guidance laid down this rule, to read and inwardly digest the book, like any other book of Classical antiquity, and to hold fast what is good in it, of which I admit there is a great deal, and to reject what is bad, of which I confess there is no inconsiderable amount. Another good and safe rule in reading Scripture is, in my opinion, that whenever we meet with passages, doctrines and sentiments against which our reason, our hearts and our humanity revolt, we should carefully avoid ignoring the voice of our conscience ; following the inspiration of our heart and common sense rather than the doubtful inspiration of passages breathing hatred, vengeance, and eternal damnation. The lecturer instanced the lex talionis of Moses as opposed to the mild and merciful teachings of Christ, and contrasted the teaching of David in the 109th Psalm, the ' prayer of curses,' with the prayer of Christ, 'who in his very death-agony blessed his mortal enemies and prayed to His Father to forgive them on account of their ignorance,' and proceeded : ' In spite of the plainness and obviousness of meaning in these and a thousand similar passages, we are told by over, or rather, mislearned theologians that it requires a vast deal of learning to understand the Word of God, and that it is a great presumption to follow the light of human reason in its interpretation. Christians of the Reformed Church especially should remember that the leading motto of the Reformation was, 'Freedom of inquiry and the right of private judgment.' They should remember Luther's words to his faint-hearted friends before he went to the Diet of Worms, ' I will go if there were as many devils as there are tiles on the roofs of the houses,' may with equal justice and propriety he applied to those unyielding and stubborn opponents of social, political, and religious progress within their own Church. But this right of private judgment is so sparingly used, and so little encouraged in our days, that a man who in church would venture to give expression to his own private views, in contradiction to the parson preaching a sermon, would most likely be silenced by an outraged crowd, and cried down, or ejected by the congregation. The true Word of God, you may be sure, requires no learning to understand it ; for if it did, God would be something like the father who offered hard nuts to his children as food, knowing at the same time that the teeth were not strong enough to crack them. If the Bible contains the true Word of God, the meaning of that Word must be clear, distinct, and unmistakeable. But so far from this being the case, every reader has his own construction and interpretation, which he prefers to that of every one else. Limiting our remarks to the New Testament alone, we find that Tischendorff in comparing the three most ancient codices, the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the Alexandrian, with our English authorised version, establishes at least ten different readings to each page of his annotated edition of the New Testament text, or above 4000 variations between the first chapter of Matthew, and the last of Revelations. Now, it does not seem to require so vast an amount of learning to see and comprehend that a book which admits of so great a variety of readings, cannot convey a clear and distinct idea of its import or purpose. This same sentiment is-very tersely expressed in that apple of discord, ' Essays and Reviews,' by Benjamin Jowett, the equally courageous and learned author of the article, ' On the Interpretation of Scripture,' where he says, ' If words have more than one meaning, they may have any meaning.' Instead of being a rule of faith or of life Scripture becomes the expression of the ever-changing aspect of religious opinions. The unchangeable Word of God in the name of which we repose, or are expected to repose, is changed by each age and each generation in accordance with the passing fancy. The book in which we believe all religious truth to be contained is the most uncertain of all books because interpreted by arbitrary and uncertain methods."

 " Similar in meaning, and equally momentous are the words of Baruch Spinoza, on the same subject and with which I intend to conclude my lecture. Spinoza says at the commencement of the seventh chapter of his ' Tractacus Theologico-Politicus,' ' That the Scriptures are the Word of God is in every body's mouth, and it is also said that they teach true happiness, and point out the way of everlasting life to man. But the thing itself is plainly judged of very differently, for the generality of men seem to care for nothing less than to live according to the precepts of Holy Writ, and whilst some are seen eager to parade their own conceits for God's word, others under pretext of zeal for religion seem only solicitous to force the rest of the world to think as they do themselves. Theologians, I say, have hitherto shown themselves especially ingenious in extorting their own conceits and figments from the letter of Scripture, and in supporting their various conclusions by divine authority. They never proceed more rashly and with fewer scruples than when they set about interpreting the Scriptures. If they show anxiety about anything it is not lest they should connect error with the Holy Spirit ; but lest they themselves should be convicted of mistake, and so have their proper authority treated with contempt. But did mankind feel that hearty conviction of the excellence of the Scriptures which they are ready enough to avow with their months, they would pursue a very different manner of living ; their souls would not be disturbed by so many discordant passions nor distracted by such ardent hatreds; neither would they make so many and rash attempts to interpret Scripture, and to produce novelties in religion. They would not venture to embrace as scripture doctrine aught which was not most plainly set forth as such in scripture itself. Then, too, would sacrilegious men who have not feared to tamper with scripture (remember as the most flagrant instance of such tampering the promulgation of the Law under Josiah, B.C. 624, and the occasion thereof as recorded in 2 Kings xxii.) in many places have withheld their hand from such wickedness. But vanity and audacity have gone so far that religion is made at length to consist less in obeying the decrees of the Holy Spirit than in adopting and defending the commentaries and conclusions of men, the effect of which is that, instead of teaching charity and good-will, religion becomes the vehicle of hatred and discord in the world, and all under the name and pretext of zeal for sacred things. With such ills, moreover, has been associated superstition, which teaches men to despise reason and nature and only to admire and respect that which these alike ignore. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if some, whilst striving to excite a greater reverence and respect for Scripture, have actually explained it in such a way as to make its precepts seem repugnant both to common sense and nature. This is the reason why such profound mysteries have been supposed to lurk in Holy Writ, and why, in searching after these, to the entire neglect of useful truths many have lost their way, and have ascribed their own delirious dreams to the Holy Spirit, and expended their strength and ingenuity in defending absurdities. Let us, therefore, remember and constantly bear in mind that true religion is not to be found in the books of men, and that the true God is not worshipped exclusively either in Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizim, but as the Great Master said, in our hearts."