DELUGE
703
DELUGE
command tliat Noe should enter the ark without telling
liini where to find or how to procure an ark (vii, 1-5).
Nop builds an altar and offens burnt offerings without
Ir iving the ark (viii, 20). P does not inform us of the
11 ,il naturi' of the corruption of all flesh (vi, 9-12); he
kiuiws of God's order to .save the animals, but knows
In tiling of Ciod's command concerning Noe and his
tunily (vi, 17-22; vii, 13); even eleven months after
the- beginning of the Flood and two months after the
- ipp('arancc of the tops of the mountains, he knows of
D.I attempt on the part of Noeto ascertain the condi- tion of the earth (viii, 13 sq.) : finally, he gives no ethical motive for the Divine blessing bestowed on Noe (ix, 1, sqq.). The critics are aware of these gaps in the two documents, and explain them by supposing that the "Redactor", who had the original Flood stories before him, did not insert their complete text into tlie Biblical account. But if the " Redactor" omitted cer- tain parts of the original documents in order to avoid repetitions, why did he not omit the repetitions dis- covereii by the critics? Or are we to assume that he introdvicetl certain repetitions, while he carefully avoided others? Is it not more likely that he con- sidered the repetitions alleged by the critics as mere rhetorical devices, as recapitulary transitions, e. g. (vi, 9-12). or gradations (vii, 17-20; vii, 21-23), or amplifications (vii, 7, 13-16a)?
(3) .1 and P are said to differ in language; but the critical division being what it is, it would be strange if the two ilocuments did not differ in language. The sections which contain chronological, systematic, and scientific material are attributed to P, the rest is left to J. Is it surprising that J does not describe the measurements of the ark, seeing that the critics do not give him any ark to describe? Or is it remarkable that P lacks the poetic style found in J's description of the raven and the dove, seeing that no section is as- signed to him, which would admit such a treatment? The care with which only set subjects and determined expressions are assigned to J and P respecti\ely is well illustrated by the fact that in spite of their minute dis- section of the Flood story, the critics must remove part of vi, 7; -iii, 3, 7, 17, 22, 23; ix, 18, 22, 23, 26; and the whole of vii, 8, 9,- from the J document, and part of vi, 17; vii, 6; ix, 4, from the P document, in order not to allow inconsistencies in their sources.
(4) Finally, J and P are said to disagree with regard to the animals to be taken into the ark, as to the dura- tion of tlie Flood, and as to God's behaviour towards man after the Flood. In vi, 19, indeed, P records God's command, "thou shalt bring two of a .sort into the ark"; but is it inconsistent with this, if 120 years later, when Noe is about to enter the ark, J re- lates the more accurate Divine specification, "of all clean beast-s take seven and seven . . . but of the beasts that are not clean two and two" (vii, 2, 3)? It cannot be said that the fulfilment shows that only two of every kind were taken into the ark; both vii, 9, and vii, 1.5, IB, read "two and two. . .male and female", .so that they express couples fit for generation rather than any absolute number. The discrepancy as to chronology- between J anil P is more artificial than true; there is no inconsistency in the chronology of the Biblical ac- count of the Flood, so that the discrepancy between the documents, if there be one, is of critical manufac- ture. Besides, a simple reading of the J document taken separately will show that its chronology is not satisfactory. Finally, if in ix. 1.5, P knows of a Divine covenant which according to J is the result of the self- deliberation of Yahweh in con.sequence of the patri- arch's sacrifice (viii, 21-22), the two documents are rather supplementary than contradictory; .1 supplies the ethical motive for God's action as described by P.
II. Historicity of the Biblical Dei.uoe Ac- count. — It has been contended that the Flood story of the Bible and the Flood legends of other peoples, looked at from a merely historical point of view,
stand on a similar footing, the Biblical account being
a mere late variant of one of tlicni. .\nd on inquiring
into their origin, we find that four theories have been
advanced: (1) The Flood story is a mere product
of fancy. Tliis theory contradicts the analogy of
similar legentls among all peoples. (2) The Deluge
story is by others considered as a nature-myth, repre-
senting the phenomena of winter, which in Babylonia
especially is the time of rain. This nature-mj-th
again is by some writers believed to have grown out
of an archaic ether-mj-th, according to which the sun
was imagined as a man voyaging on a boat in the
heavenly ocean. The fact that the sea was to be
found on the earth, not in heaven, and the damage
wrought by the incessant winter-rain and the inun-
dation of great rivers, transferred the mytli from
heaven to earth . changing the ether-myth into a nature-
myth. But this theory, too, neglects the numerous
Flood stories existing among many nations, which do
not lend themselves to a similar explanation. (3)
Connected with the preceding theorj' is the explana-
tion which makes the Deluge storj' a cosmogonic fable.
It has been seen that the hero rescued in the sliip
must have been the sun-goil (cf. the ether-myth).
Thus the Deluge becomes ultimately a variant of the
Babylonian creation-myth. It is for this reason that
the mythological text published by Peiser calls the
time of the Deluge "the year of the great serpent".
For this "great serpent" is the personified ocean
which on old Babylonian maps encircles Babylonia,
just as leviathan is the world-encircling ocean per-
sonified as a serpent; it is the same monster which
is a central figure in the Creation story. We need not
add that this theor}^ too, leaves the great bulk of the
existing Flood traditions unexplained. (4) It has
been inferred from the improbability of the preceding
theories, that the Flood story must be a poetical or
legendary presentation of some natural occurrence.
Furthermore, it is maintained that the immediate
basis of the legend is a local disturbance. It may
have been a great inundation caused by an overflow
of the Tigris and Euphrates, or the incursion of a
tidal wave resulting from an earthquake south of the
mouth of the two rivers. But however terrible the
ruin wrought by such inundations may be, this theory
does not account for the universality of the Flood
tradition, vmless we suppose that the ruin affected
the ancestors of all human races.
Thus far we have considered the Biblical Flood story from a merely historical point of view. But the Bible student who believes in the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures and admits the value of tradition in their exegesis can hardly rest satisfied with the results thus far obtained. It will not even be enough to grant that the ancient Flood legend became the vehicle of religious and spiritual truth by means of a divinely guided religious feeling and insight of the inspired writer. The Deluge is referred to in several passages of Scripture as a historical fact; the writings of the Fathers consider the event in the same light, and this view of the subject is confirmed by the numerous variants under which the Flood tradition lives in the most distant nations of the earth.
(o) The following are some of the New Testament passages which imply that the Deluge was a real his- torical event: " And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, mar- rj'ing and giving in marriage, even till that d.ay in which Noe entered into the ark, and they knew not till the flood came, and took them all away; so aLso shall the coming of the Son of man be" (Matt., xxiv, 37-39). In these words Christ regards the Flood with its circum.stances as being not le.ss real than the last days will be of which He speaks in the pa.ssage. The same view concerning the Flood, ("hrist implies in Luke, xvii, 26-27. In the Epistle to the Hebrews
