{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_2632/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_2632","id":"gutenberg_2632","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2632","summary":null,"tags":["Bible and science","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Category: Science - Earth/Agricultural/Farming","Evolution","Paleontology","Science"],"text":"Produced by D. R. Thompson\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE LIGHTS OF THE CHURCH AND THE LIGHT OF SCIENCE\n\nESSAY #6 FROM \"SCIENCE AND HEBREW TRADITION\"\n\n\nBy Thomas Henry Huxley\n\n\n\nThere are three ways of regarding any account of past occurrences,\nwhether delivered to us orally or recorded in writing.\n\nThe narrative may be exactly true. That is to say, the words, taken in\ntheir natural sense, and interpreted according to the rules of grammar,\nmay convey to the mind of the hearer, or of the reader an idea precisely\ncorrespondent with one which would have remained in the mind of a\nwitness. For example, the statement that King Charles the First was\nbeheaded at Whitehall on the 30th day of January 1649, is as exactly\ntrue as any proposition in mathematics or physics; no one doubts that\nany person of sound faculties, properly placed, who was present at\nWhitehall throughout that day, and who used his eyes, would have seen\nthe King's head cut off; and that there would have remained in his mind\nan idea of that occurrence which he would have put into words of the\nsame value as those which we use to express it.\n\nOr the narrative may be partly true and partly false. Thus, some\nhistories of the time tell us what the King said, and what Bishop Juxon\nsaid; or report royalist conspiracies to effect a rescue; or detail the\nmotives which induced the chiefs of the Commonwealth to resolve that\nthe King should die. One account declares that the King knelt at a high\nblock, another that he lay down with his neck on a mere plank. And\nthere are contemporary pictorial representations of both these modes of\nprocedure. Such narratives, while veracious as to the main event,\nmay and do exhibit various degrees of unconscious and conscious\nmisrepresentation, suppression, and invention, till they become hardly\ndistinguishable from pure fictions. Thus, they present a transition\nto narratives of a third class, in which the fictitious element\npredominates. Here, again, there are all imaginable gradations, from\nsuch works as Defoe's quasi-historical account of the Plague year,\nwhich probably gives a truer conception of that dreadful time than any\nauthentic history, through the historical novel, drama, and epic, to\nthe purely phantasmal creations of imaginative genius, such as the old\n\"Arabian Nights\" or the modern \"Shaving of Shagpat.\" It is not strictly\nneedful for my present purpose that I should say anything about\nnarratives which are professedly fictitious. Yet it may be well,\nperhaps, if I disclaim any intention of derogating from their value,\nwhen I insist upon the paramount necessity of recollecting that there is\nno sort of relation between the ethical, or the aesthetic, or even\nthe scientific importance of such works, and their worth as historical\ndocuments. Unquestionably, to the poetic artist, or even to the student\nof psychology, \"Hamlet\" and \"Macbeth\" may be better instructors than\nall the books of a wilderness of professors of aesthetics or of moral\nphilosophy. But, as evidence of occurrences in Denmark, or in\nScotland, at the times and places indicated, they are out of court;\nthe profoundest admiration for them, the deepest gratitude for their\ninfluence, are consistent with the knowledge that, historically\nspeaking, they are worthless fables, in which any foundation of reality\nthat may exist is submerged beneath the imaginative superstructure.\n\nAt present, however, I am not concerned to dwell upon the importance\nof fictitious literature and the immensity of the work which it has\neffected in the education of the human race. I propose to deal with the\nmuch more limited inquiry: Are there two other classes of consecutive\nnarratives (as distinct from statements of individual facts), or only\none? Is there any known historical work which is throughout exactly\ntrue, or is there not? In the case of the great majority of histories\nthe answer is not doubtful: they are all only partially true. Even those\nvenerable works which bear the names of some of the greatest of ancient\nGreek and Roman writers, and which have been accepted by generation\nafter generation, down to modern times, as stories of unquestionable\ntruth, have been compelled by scientific criticism, after a long battle,\nto descend to the common level, and to confession to a large admixture\nof error. I might fairly take this for granted; but it may be well that\nI should entrench myself behind the very apposite words of a historical\nauthority who is certainly not obnoxious to even a suspicion of\nsceptical tendencies. [1]\n\n    Time was--and that not very long ago--when all the relations of\n    ancient authors concerning the old world were received with a\n    ready belief; and an unreasoning and uncritical faith accepted\n    with equal satisfaction the narrative of the campaigns of Caesar\n    and of the doings of Romulus, the account of Alexander's marches\n    and of the conquests of Semiramis. We can most of us remember\n    when, in this country, the whole story of regal Rome, and even\n    the legend of the Trojan settlement in Latium, were seriously\n    placed before boys as history, and discoursed of as\n    unhesitatingly and in as dogmatic a tone as the tale of the\n    Catilline Conspiracy or the Conquest of Britain....\n\n    But all this is now changed. The last century has seen the birth\n    and growth of a new science--the Science of Historical\n    Criticism.... The whole world of profane history has been\n    revolutionised....\n\nIf these utterances were true when they fell from the lips of a Bampton\nlecturer in 1859, with how much greater force do they appeal to us now,\nwhen the immense labours of the generation now passing away constitute\none vast illustration of the power and fruitfulness of scientific\nmethods of investigation in history, no less than in all other\ndepartments of knowledge.\n\nAt the present time, I suppose, there is no one who doubts that\nhistories which appertain to any other people than the Jews, and their\nspiritual progeny in the first century, fall within the second class\nof the three enumerated. Like Goethe's Autobiography, they might all be\nentitled \"Wahrheit und Dichtung\"--\"Truth and Fiction.\" The proportion\nof the two constituents changes indefinitely; and the quality of the\nfiction varies through the whole gamut of unveracity. But \"Dichtung\" is\nalways there. For the most acute and learned of historians cannot\nremedy the imperfections of his sources of information; nor can the\nmost impartial wholly escape the influence of the \"personal equation\"\ngenerated by his temperament and by his education. Therefore, from the\nnarratives of Herodotus to those set forth in yesterday's \"Times,\" all\nhistory is to be read subject to the warning that fiction has its share\ntherein. The modern vast development of fugitive literature cannot be\nthe unmitigated evil that some do vainly say it is, since it has put\nan end to the popular delusion of less press-ridden times, that\nwhat appears in print must be true. We should rather hope that some\nbeneficent influence may create among the erudite a like healthy\nsuspicion of manuscripts and inscriptions, however ancient; for a\nbulletin may lie, even though it be written in cuneiform characters.\nHotspur's starling, that was to be taught to speak nothing but\n\"Mortimer\" into the ears of King Henry the Fourth, might be a useful\ninmate of every historian's library, if \"Fiction\" were substituted for\nthe name of Harry Percy's friend.\n\nBut it was the chief object of the lecturer to the congregation gathered\nin St. Mary's, Oxford, thirty-one years ago, to prove to them, by\nevidence gathered with no little labour and marshalled with much skill,\nthat one group of historical works was exempt from the general rule; and\nthat the narratives contained in the canonical Scriptures are free from\nany admixture of error. With justice and candour, the lecturer impresses\nupon his hearers that the special distinction of Christianity, among the\nreligions of the world, lies in its claim to be historical; to be surely\nfounded upon events which have happened, exactly as they are declared to\nhave happened in its sacred books; which are true, that is, in the sense\nthat the statement about the execution of Charles the First is\ntrue. Further, it is affirmed that the New Testament presupposes the\nhistorical exactness of the Old Testament; that the points of contact\nof \"sacred\" and \"profane\" history are innumerable; and that the\ndemonstration of the falsity of the Hebrew records, especially in regard\nto those narratives which are assumed to be true in the New Testament,\nwould be fatal to Christian theology.\n\nMy utmost ingenuity does not enable me to discover a flaw in the\nargument thus briefly summarised. I am fairly at a loss to comprehend\nhow any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand\nor fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures.\nThe very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably\ninterwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth\nwith that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the\nHebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the\nhistorical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was\nnot made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if\nthe \"ten words\" were not written by God's hand on the stone tables; if\nAbraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story\nof the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the\ncreation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed\nnarratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than\nhave the stories of the regal period of Rome--what is to be said about\nthe Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated?\nAnd what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New\nTestament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions\nfor solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma\nupon legendary quicksands?\n\nBut these may be said to be merely the carpings of that carnal reason\nwhich the profane call common sense; I hasten, therefore, to bring up\nthe forces of unimpeachable ecclesiastical authority in support of my\nposition. In a sermon preached last December, in St. Paul's Cathedral,\n[2] Canon Liddon declares:--\n\n\"For Christians it will be enough to know that our Lord Jesus Christ set\nthe seal of His infallible sanction on the whole of the Old Testament.\nHe found the Hebrew canon as we have it in our hands to-day, and He\ntreated it as an authority which was above discussion. Nay more: He went\nout of His way--if we may reverently speak thus--to sanction not a few\nportions of it which modern scepticism rejects. When He would warn His\nhearers against the dangers of spiritual relapse, He bids them remember\n'Lot's wife.' [3] When He would point out how worldly engagements may\nblind the soul to a coming judgment, He reminds them how men ate, and\ndrank, and married, and were given in marriage, until the day that Noah\nentered into the ark, and the Flood came and destroyed them all. [4] If\nHe would put His finger on a fact in past Jewish history which, by its\nadmitted reality, would warrant belief in His own coming Resurrection,\nHe points to Jonah's being three days and three nights in the whale's\nbelly (p. 23).\" [5]\n\nThe preacher proceeds to brush aside the common--I had almost said\nvulgar--apologetic pretext that Jesus was using _ad hominem_ arguments,\nor \"accommodating\" his better knowledge to popular ignorance, as well\nas to point out the inadmissibility of the other alternative, that he\nshared the popular ignorance. And to those who hold the latter view\nsarcasm is dealt out with no niggard hand.\n\n    But they will find it difficult to persuade mankind that, if He\n    could be mistaken on a matter of such strictly religious\n    importance as the value of the sacred literature of His\n    countrymen, He can be safely trusted about anything else. The\n    trustworthiness of the Old Testament is, in fact, inseparable\n    from the trustworthiness of our Lord Jesus Christ; and if we\n    believe that He is the true Light of the world, we shall close\n    our ears against suggestions impairing the credit of those\n    Jewish Scriptures which have received the stamp of His Divine\n    authority. (p. 25)\n\nMoreover, I learn from the public journals that a brilliant and\nsharply-cut view of orthodoxy, of like hue and pattern, was only the\nother day exhibited in that great theological kaleidoscope, the pulpit\nof St. Mary's, recalling the time so long passed by, when a Bampton\nlecturer, in the same place, performed the unusual feat of leaving the\nfaith of old-fashioned Christians undisturbed.\n\nYet many things have happened in the intervening thirty-one years. The\nBampton lecturer of 1859 had to grapple only with the infant Hercules of\nhistorical criticism; and he is now a full-grown athlete, bearing on\nhis shoulders the spoils of all the lions that have stood in his path.\nSurely a martyr's courage, as well as a martyr's faith, is needed by any\none who, at this time, is prepared to stand by the following plea for\nthe veracity of the Pentateuch:--\n\n\"Adam, according to the Hebrew original, was for 243 years contemporary\nwith Methuselah, who conversed for a hundred years with Shem. Shem was\nfor fifty years contemporary with Jacob, who probably saw Jochebed,\nMoses's mother. Thus, Moses might by oral tradition have obtained the\nhistory of Abraham, and even of the Deluge, at third hand; and that of\nthe Temptation and the Fall at fifth hand....\n\n\"If it be granted--as it seems to be--that the great and stirring events\nin a nation's life will, under ordinary circumstances, be remembered\n(apart from all written memorials) for the space of 150 years, being\nhanded down through five generations, it must be allowed (even on more\nhuman grounds) that the account which Moses gives of the Temptation and\nthe Fall is to be depended upon, if it passed through no more than four\nhands between him and Adam.\" [6]\n\nIf \"the trustworthiness of our Lord Jesus Christ\" is to stand or fall\nwith the belief in the sudden transmutation of the chemical components\nof a woman's body into sodium chloride, or on the \"admitted reality\"\nof Jonah's ejection, safe and sound, on the shores of the Levant, after\nthree days' sea-journey in the stomach of a gigantic marine animal, what\npossible pretext can there be for even hinting a doubt as to the precise\ntruth of the longevity attributed to the Patriarchs? Who that has\nswallowed the camel of Jonah's journey will be guilty of the affectation\nof straining at such a historical gnat--nay, midge--as the supposition\nthat the mother of Moses was told the story of the Flood by Jacob; who\nhad it straight from Shem; who was on friendly terms with Methuselah;\nwho knew Adam quite well?\n\nYet, by the strange irony of things, the illustrious brother of the\ndivine who propounded this remarkable theory, has been the guide and\nforemost worker of that band of investigators of the records of Assyria\nand of Babylonia, who have opened to our view, not merely a new chapter,\nbut a new volume of primeval history, relating to the very people who\nhave the most numerous points of contact with the life of the ancient\nHebrews. Now, whatever imperfections may yet obscure the full value of\nthe Mesopotamian records, everything that has been clearly ascertained\ntends to the conclusion that the assignment of no more than 4000 years\nto the period between the time of the origin of mankind and that\nof Augustus Caesar, is wholly inadmissible. Therefore the Biblical\nchronology, which Canon Rawlinson trusted so implicitly in 1859, is\nrelegated by all serious critics to the domain of fable.\n\nBut if scientific method, operating in the region of history, of\nphilology, of archaeology, in the course of the last thirty or forty\nyears, has become thus formidable to the theological dogmatist, what may\nnot be said about scientific method working in the province of\nphysical science? For, if it be true that the Canonical Scriptures have\ninnumerable points of contact with civil history, it is no less true\nthat they have almost as many with natural history; and their accuracy\nis put to the test as severely by the latter as by the former. The\norigin of the present state of the heavens and the earth is a problem\nwhich lies strictly within the province of physical science; so is that\nof the origin of man among living things; so is that of the physical\nchanges which the earth has undergone since the origin of man; so is\nthat of the origin of the various races and nations of men, with all\ntheir varieties of language and physical conformation. Whether the\nearth moves round the sun or the contrary; whether the bodily and mental\ndiseases of men and animals are caused by evil spirits or not; whether\nthere is such an agency as witchcraft or not--all these are purely\nscientific questions; and to all of them the Canonical Scriptures\nprofess to give true answers. And though nothing is more common than the\nassumption that these books come into conflict only with the speculative\npart of modern physical science, no assumption can have less foundation.\n\nThe antagonism between natural knowledge and the Pentateuch would be as\ngreat if the speculations of our time had never been heard of. It arises\nout of contradiction upon matters of fact. The books of ecclesiastical\nauthority declare that certain events happened in a certain fashion; the\nbooks of scientific authority say they did not. As it seems that this\nunquestionable truth has not yet penetrated among many of those who\nspeak and write on these subjects, it may be useful to give a full\nillustration of it. And for that purpose I propose to deal, at some\nlength, with the narrative of the Noachian Deluge given in Genesis.\n\n\nThe Bampton lecturer in 1859, and the Canon of St. Paul's in 1890, are\nin full agreement that this history is true, in the sense in which I\nhave defined historical truth. The former is of opinion that the account\nattributed to Berosus records a tradition--\n\n   not drawn from the Hebrew record, much less the foundation of\n   that record; yet coinciding with it in the most remarkable way.\n   The Babylonian version is tricked out with a few extravagances,\n   as the monstrous size of the vessel and the translation of\n   Xisuthros; but otherwise it is the Hebrew history _down to its\n   minutiae._ (p. 64).\n\nMoreover, correcting Niebuhr, the Bampton lecturer points out that the\nnarrative of Berosus implies the universality of the Flood.\n\n   It is plain that the waters are represented as prevailing above\n   the tops of the loftiest mountains in Armenia--a height which\n   must have been seen to involve the submersion of all the\n   countries with which the Babylonians were acquainted (p. 66).\n\nI may remark, in passing, that many people think the size of Noah's ark\n\"monstrous,\" considering the probable state of the art of shipbuilding\nonly 1600 years after the origin of man; while others are so\nunreasonable as to inquire why the translation of Enoch is less an\n\"extravagance\" than that of Xisuthros. It is more important, however, to\nnote that the Universality of the Deluge is recognised, not merely as\na part of the story, but as a necessary consequence of some of its\ndetails. The latest exponent of Anglican orthodoxy, as we have seen,\ninsists upon the accuracy of the Pentateuchal history of the Flood in a\nstill more forcible manner. It is cited as one of those very narratives\nto which the authority of the Founder of Christianity is pledged,\nand upon the accuracy of which \"the trustworthiness of our Lord Jesus\nChrist\" is staked, just as others have staked it upon the truth of the\nhistories of demoniac possession in the Gospels.\n\nNow, when those who put their trust in scientific methods of\nascertaining the truth in the province of natural history find\nthemselves confronted and opposed, on their own ground, by\necclesiastical pretensions to better knowledge, it is, undoubtedly, most\ndesirable for them to make sure that their conclusions, whatever they\nmay be, are well founded. And, if they put aside the unauthorised\ninterference with their business and relegate the Pentateuchal history\nto the region of pure fiction, they are bound to assure themselves that\nthey do so because the plainest teachings of Nature (apart from all\ndoubtful speculations) are irreconcilable with the assertions which they\nreject.\n\nAt the present time, it is difficult to persuade serious scientific\ninquirers to occupy themselves, in any way, with the Noachian Deluge.\nThey look at you with a smile and a shrug, and say they have more\nimportant matters to attend to than mere antiquarianism. But it was not\nso in my youth. At that time, geologists and biologists could hardly\nfollow to the end any path of inquiry without finding the way blocked\nby Noah and his ark, or by the first chapter of Genesis; and it was a\nserious matter, in this country at any rate, for a man to be suspected\nof doubting the literal truth of the Diluvial or any other Pentateuchal\nhistory. The fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of the Geological\nClub (in 1824) was, if I remember rightly, the last occasion on which\nthe late Sir Charles Lyell spoke to even so small a public as the\nmembers of that body. Our veteran leader lighted up once more; and,\nreferring to the difficulties which beset his early efforts to create\na rational science of geology, spoke, with his wonted clearness and\nvigour, of the social ostracism which pursued him after the publication\nof the \"Principles of Geology,\" in 1830, on account of the obvious\ntendency of that noble work to discredit the Pentateuchal accounts of\nthe Creation and the Deluge. If my younger contemporaries find this hard\nto believe, I may refer them to a grave book, \"On the Doctrine of the\nDeluge,\" published eight years later, and dedicated by its author to\nhis father, the then Archbishop of York. The first chapter refers to the\ntreatment of the \"Mosaic Deluge,\" by Dr. Buckland and Mr. Lyell, in the\nfollowing terms:\n\n   Their respect for revealed religion has prevented them from\n   arraying themselves openly against the Scriptural account of it\n   --much less do they deny its truth--but they are in a great\n   hurry to escape from the consideration of it, and evidently\n   concur in the opinion of Linnaeus, that no proofs whatever of\n   the Deluge are to be discovered in the structure of the\n   earth (p. 1).\n\nAnd after an attempt to reply to some of Lyell's arguments, which it\nwould be cruel to reproduce, the writer continues:--\n\n   When, therefore, upon such slender grounds, it is\n   determined, in answer to those who insist upon its universality,\n   that the Mosaic Deluge must be considered a preternatural event,\n   far beyond the reach of philosophical inquiry; not only as to\n   the causes employed to produce it, but as to the effects most\n   likely to result from it; that determination wears an aspect of\n   scepticism, which, however much soever it may be unintentional\n   in the mind of the writer, yet cannot but produce an evil\n   impression on those who are already predisposed to carp and\n   cavil at the evidences of Revelation (pp. 8-9).\n\nThe kindly and courteous writer of these curious passages is evidently\nunwilling to make the geologists the victims of general opprobrium\nby pressing the obvious consequences of their teaching home. One is\ntherefore pained to think of the feelings with which, if he lived so\nlong as to become acquainted with the \"Dictionary of the Bible,\" he must\nhave perused the article \"Noah,\" written by a dignitary of the Church\nfor that standard compendium and published in 1863. For the doctrine\nof the universality of the Deluge is therein altogether given up; and I\npermit myself to hope that a long criticism of the story from the point\nof view of natural science, with which, at the request of the learned\ntheologian who wrote it, I supplied him, may, in some degree, have\ncontributed towards this happy result.\n\nNotwithstanding diligent search, I have been unable to discover that the\nuniversality of the Deluge has any defender left, at least among those\nwho have so far mastered the rudiments of natural knowledge as to be\nable to appreciate the weight of evidence against it. For example, when\nI turned to the \"Speaker's Bible,\" published under the sanction of\nhigh Anglican authority, I found the following judicial and judicious\ndeliverance, the skilful wording of which may adorn, but does not hide,\nthe completeness of the surrender of the old teaching:--\n\n\"Without pronouncing too hastily on any fair inferences from the\nwords of Scripture, we may reasonably say that their most natural\ninterpretation is, that the whole race of man had become grievously\ncorrupted since the faithful had intermingled with the ungodly; that the\ninhabited world was consequently filled with violence, and that God\nhad decreed to destroy all mankind except one single family; that,\ntherefore, all that portion of the earth, perhaps as yet a very small\nportion, into which mankind had spread was overwhelmed with water. The\nark was ordained to save one faithful family; and lest that family, on\nthe subsidence of the waters, should find the whole country round them a\ndesert, a pair of all the beasts of the land and of the fowls of the\nair were preserved along with them, and along with them went forth to\nreplenish the now desolated continent. The words of Scripture (confirmed\nas they are by universal tradition) appear at least to mean as much as\nthis. They do not necessarily mean more.\" [7]\n\nIn the third edition of Kitto's \"Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature\"\n(1876), the article \"Deluge,\" written by my friend, the present\ndistinguished head of the Geological Survey of Great Britain,\nextinguishes the universality doctrine as thoroughly as might be\nexpected from its authorship; and, since the writer of the article\n\"Noah\" refers his readers to that entitled \"Deluge,\" it is to be\nsupposed, notwithstanding his generally orthodox tone, that he does\nnot dissent from its conclusions. Again, the writers in Herzog's\n\"Real-Encyclopadie\" (Bd. X. 1882) and in Riehm's \"Handworterbuch\"\n(1884)--both works with a conservative leaning--are on the same side;\nand Diestel, [8] in his full discussion of the subject, remorselessly\nrejects the universality doctrine. Even that staunch opponent of\nscientific rationalism--may I say rationality?--Zockler [9] flinches\nfrom a distinct defence of the thesis, any opposition to which,\nwell within my recollection, was howled down by the orthodox as mere\n\"infidelity.\" All that, in his sore straits, Dr. Zockler is able to do,\nis to pronounce a faint commendation upon a particularly absurd attempt\nat reconciliation, which would make out the Noachian Deluge to be\na catastrophe which occurred at the end of the Glacial Epoch. This\nhypothesis involves only the trifle of a physical revolution of which\ngeology knows nothing; and which, if it secured the accuracy of the\nPentateuchal writer about the fact of the Deluge, would leave the\ndetails of his account as irreconcilable with the truths of elementary\nphysical science as ever. Thus I may be permitted to spare myself and my\nreaders the weariness of a recapitulation of the overwhelming arguments\nagainst the universality of the Deluge, which they will now find for\nthemselves stated, as fully and forcibly as could be wished, by Anglican\nand other theologians, whose orthodoxy and conservative tendencies\nhave, hitherto, been above suspicion. Yet many fully admit (and, indeed,\nnothing can be plainer) that, as a matter of fact, the whole earth known\nto him was inundated; nor is it less obvious that unless all mankind,\nwith the exception of Noah and his family, were actually destroyed, the\nreferences to the Flood in the New Testament are unintelligible.\n\nBut I am quite aware that the strength of the demonstration that no\nuniversal Deluge ever took place has produced a change of front in the\narmy of apologetic writers. They have imagined that the substitution\nof the adjective \"partial\" for \"universal,\" will save the credit of the\nPentateuch, and permit them, after all, without too many blushes,\nto declare that the progress of modern science only strengthens the\nauthority of Moses. Nowhere have I found the case of the advocates of\nthis method of escaping from the difficulties of the actual position\nbetter put than in the lecture of Professor Diestel to which I have\nreferred. After frankly admitting that the old doctrine of universality\ninvolves physical impossibilities, he continues:--\n\n   All these difficulties fall away as soon as we give up the\n   universality of the Deluge, and imagine a _partial_\n   flooding of the earth, say in western Asia. But have we a right\n   to do so? The narrative speaks of \"the whole earth.\" But what is\n   the meaning of this expression? Surely not the whole surface of\n   the earth according to the ideas of _modern_ geographers,\n   but, at most, according to the conceptions of the Biblical\n   author. This very simple conclusion, however, is never drawn by\n   too many readers of the Bible. But one need only cast one's eyes\n   over the tenth chapter of Genesis in order to become acquainted\n   with the geographical horizon of the Jews. In the north it was\n   bounded by the Black Sea and the mountains of Armenia;\n   extended towards the east very little beyond the Tigris;\n   hardly reached the apex of the Persian Gulf; passed, then,\n   through the middle of Arabia and the Red Sea; went southward\n   through Abyssinia, and then turned westward by the frontiers of\n   Egypt, and inclosed the easternmost islands of the\n   Mediterranean (p. 11).\n\nThe justice of this observation must be admitted, no less than the\nfurther remark that, in still earlier times, the pastoral Hebrews very\nprobably had yet more restricted notions of what constituted the \"whole\nearth.\" Moreover, I, for one, fully agree with Professor Diestel that\nthe motive, or generative incident, of the whole story is to be sought\nin the occasionally excessive and desolating floods of the Euphrates and\nthe Tigris.\n\nLet us, provisionally, accept the theory of a partial deluge, and try to\nform a clear mental picture of the occurrence. Let us suppose that, for\nforty days and forty nights, such a vast quantity of water was poured\nupon the ground that the whole surface of Mesopotamia was covered by\nwater to a depth certainly greater, probably much greater, than fifteen\ncubits, or twenty feet (Gen. vii. 20). The inundation prevails upon\nthe earth for one hundred and fifty days and then the flood gradually\ndecreases, until, on the seventeenth day of the seventh month, the ark,\nwhich had previously floated on its surface, grounds upon the \"mountains\nof Ararat\" [10] (Gen. viii. 34). Then, as Diestel has acutely pointed\nout (\"Sintflut,\" p. 13), we are to imagine the further subsidence of the\nflood to take place so gradually that it was not until nearly two months\nand a half after this time (that is to say, on the first day of the\ntenth month) that the \"tops of the mountains\" became visible. Hence it\nfollows that, if the ark drew even as much as twenty feet of water, the\nlevel of the inundation fell very slowly--at a rate of only a few inches\na day--until the top of the mountain on which it rested became visible.\nThis is an amount of movement which, if it took place in the sea, would\nbe overlooked by ordinary people on the shore. But the Mesopotamian\nplain slopes gently, from an elevation of 500 or 600 feet at its\nnorthern end, to the sea, at its southern end, with hardly so much as a\nnotable ridge to break its uniform flatness, for 300 to 400 miles.\nThese being the conditions of the case, the following inquiry naturally\npresents itself: not, be it observed, as a recondite problem, generated\nby modern speculation, but as a plain suggestion flowing out of that\nvery ordinary and archaic piece of knowledge that water cannot be piled\nup like in a heap, like sand; or that it seeks the lowest level. When,\nafter 150 days, \"the fountains also of the deep and the windows of\nheaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained\" (Gen.\nviii.2), what prevented the mass of water, several, possibly very many,\nfathoms deep, which covered, say, the present site of Bagdad, from\nsweeping seaward in a furious torrent; and, in a very few hours,\nleaving, not only the \"tops of the mountains,\" but the whole plain,\nsave any minor depressions, bare? How could its subsistence, by any\npossibility, be an affair of weeks and months?\n\nAnd if this difficulty is not enough, let any one try to imagine how\na mass of water several perhaps very many, fathoms deep, could be\naccumulated on a flat surface of land rising well above the sea,\nand separated from it by no sort of barrier. Most people know Lord's\nCricket-ground. Would it not be an absurd contradiction to our common\nknowledge of the properties of water to imagine that, if all the\nmains of all the waterworks of London were turned on to it, they could\nmaintain a heap of water twenty feet deep over its level surface? Is it\nnot obvious that the water, whatever momentary accumulation might take\nplace at first, would not stop there, but that it would dash, like a\nmighty mill-race, southwards down the gentle slope which ends in the\nThames? And is it not further obvious, that whatever depth of water\nmight be maintained over the cricket-ground so long as all the mains\npoured on to it, anything which floated there would be speedily whirled\naway by the current, like a cork in a gutter when the rain pours? But\nif this is so, then it is no less certain that Noah's deeply laden,\nsailless, oarless, and rudderless craft, if by good fortune it escaped\ncapsizing in whirlpools, or having its bottom knocked into holes by\nsnags (like those which prove fatal even to well-built steamers on the\nMississippi in our day), would have speedily found itself a good way\ndown the Persian Gulf, and not long after in the Indian Ocean, somewhere\nbetween Arabia and Hindostan. Even if, eventually, the ark might have\ngone ashore, with other jetsam and flotsam, on the coasts of Arabia, or\nof Hindostan, or of the Maldives, or of Madagascar, its return to the\n\"mountains of Ararat\" would have been a miracle more stupendous than all\nthe rest.\n\nThus, the last state of the would-be reconcilers of the story of the\nDeluge with fact is worse than the first. All that they have done is\nto transfer the contradictions to established truth from the region\nof science proper to that of common information and common sense. For,\nreally, the assertion that the surface of a body of deep water, to which\nno addition was made, and which there was nothing to stop from running\ninto the sea, sank at the rate of only a few inches or even feet a day,\nsimply outrages the most ordinary and familiar teachings of every man's\ndaily experience. A child may see the folly of it.\n\nIn addition, I may remark that the necessary assumption of the \"partial\nDeluge\" hypothesis (if it is confined to Mesopotamia) that the Hebrew\nwriter must have meant low hills when he said \"high mountains,\" is quite\nuntenable. On the eastern side of the Mesopotamian plain, the snowy\npeaks of the frontier ranges of Persia are visible from Bagdad, [11]\nand even the most ignorant herdsmen in the neighbourhood of \"Ur of the\nChaldees,\" near its western limit, could hardly have been unacquainted\nwith the comparatively elevated plateau of the Syrian desert which lay\nclose at hand. But, surely, we must suppose the Biblical writer to be\nacquainted with the highlands of Palestine and with the masses of the\nSinaitic peninsula, which soar more than 8000 feet above the sea, if he\nknew of no higher elevations; and, if so, he could not well have meant\nto refer to mere hillocks when he said that \"all the high mountains\nwhich were under the whole heaven were covered\" (Genesis vii. 19). Even\nthe hill-country of Galilee reaches an elevation of 4000 feet; and a\nflood which covered it could by no possibility have been other than\nuniversal in its superficial extent. Water really cannot be got to stand\nat, say, 4000 feet above the sea-level over Palestine, without covering\nthe rest of the globe to the same height. Even if, in the course of\nNoah's six hundredth year, some prodigious convulsion had sunk the whole\nregion inclosed within \"the horizon of the geographical knowledge\" of\nthe Israelites by that much, and another had pushed it up again, just\nin time to catch the ark upon the \"mountains of Ararat,\" matters are not\nmuch mended. I am afraid to think of what would have become of a vessel\nso little seaworthy as the ark and of its very numerous passengers,\nunder the peculiar obstacles to quiet flotation which such rapid\nmovements of depression and upheaval would have generated.\n\nThus, in view, not, I repeat of the recondite speculations of infidel\nphilosophers, but in the face of the plainest and most commonplace of\nascertained physical facts, the story of the Noachian Deluge has no more\nclaim to credit than has that of Deucalion; and whether it was, or was\nnot, suggested by the familiar acquaintance of its originators with the\neffects of unusually great overflows of the Tigris and Euphrates, it is\nutterly devoid of historical truth.\n\nThat is, in my judgment, the necessary result of the application of\ncriticism, based upon assured physical knowledge to the story of the\nDeluge. And it is satisfactory that the criticism which is based, not\nupon literary and historical speculations, but upon well-ascertained\nfacts in the departments of literature and history, tends to exactly the\nsame conclusion.\n\nFor I find this much agreed upon by all Biblical scholars of repute,\nthat the story of the Deluge in Genesis is separable into at least two\nsets of statements; and that, when the statements thus separated are\nrecombined in their proper order, each set furnishes an account of\nthe event, coherent and complete within itself, but in some respects\ndiscordant with that afforded by the other set. This fact, as I\nunderstand, is not disputed. Whether one of these is the work of an\nElohist, and the other of a Jehovist narrator; whether the two have been\npieced together in this strange fashion because, in the estimation\nof the compilers and editors of the Pentateuch, they had equal and\nindependent authority, or not; or whether there is some other way of\naccounting for it--are questions the answers to which do not affect the\nfact. If possible I avoid _a priori_ arguments. But still, I think it\nmay be urged, without imprudence, that a narrative having this structure\nis hardly such as might be expected from a writer possessed of full and\ninfallibly accurate knowledge. Once more, it would seem that it is not\nnecessarily the mere inclination of the sceptical spirit to question\neverything, or the wilful blindness of infidels, which prompts grave\ndoubts as to the value of a narrative thus curiously unlike the ordinary\nrun of veracious histories.\n\nBut the voice of archaeological and historical criticism still has to be\nheard; and it gives forth no uncertain sound. The marvellous recovery of\nthe records of an antiquity, far superior to any that can be ascribed to\nthe Pentateuch, which has been effected by the decipherers of cuneiform\ncharacters, has put us in possession of a series, once more, not of\nspeculations, but of facts, which have a most remarkable bearing upon\nthe question of the truthworthiness of the narrative of the Flood. It is\nestablished, that for centuries before the asserted migration of Terah\nfrom Ur of the Chaldees (which, according to the orthodox interpreters\nof the Pentateuch, took place after the year 2000 B.C.) Lower\nMesopotamia was the seat of a civilisation in which art and science and\nliterature had attained a development formerly unsuspected or, if there\nwere faint reports of it, treated as fabulous. And it is also no matter\nof speculation, but a fact, that the libraries of these people contain\nversions of a long epic poem, one of the twelve books of which tells\na story of a deluge, which, in a number of its leading features,\ncorresponds with the story attributed to Berosus, no less than with the\nstory given in Genesis, with curious exactness. Thus, the correctness of\nCanon Rawlinson's conclusion, cited above, that the story of Berosus was\nneither drawn from the Hebrew record, nor is the foundation of it,\ncan hardly be questioned. It is highly probable, if not certain, that\nBerosus relied upon one of the versions (for there seem to have been\nseveral) of the old Babylonian epos, extant in his time; and, if that is\na reasonable conclusion, why is it unreasonable to believe that the\ntwo stories, which the Hebrew compiler has put together in such an\ninartistic fashion, were ultimately derived from the same source? I say\nultimately, because it does not at all follow that the two versions,\npossibly trimmed by the Jehovistic writer on the one hand, and by the\nElohistic on the other, to suit Hebrew requirements, may not have been\ncurrent among the Israelites for ages. And they may have acquired great\nauthority before they were combined in the Pentateuch.\n\nLooking at the convergence of all these lines of evidence to the\none conclusion--that the story of the Flood in Genesis is merely a\nBowdlerised version of one of the oldest pieces of purely fictitious\nliterature extant; that whether this is, or is not, its origin, the\nevents asserted in it to have taken place assuredly never did take\nplace; further, that, in point of fact, the story, in the plain and\nlogically necessary sense of its words, has long since been given up by\northodox and conservative commentators of the Established Church--I can\nbut admire the courage and clear foresight of the Anglican divine who\ntells us that we must be prepared to choose between the trustworthiness\nof scientific method and the trustworthiness of that which the Church\ndeclares to be Divine authority. For, to my mind, this declaration of\nwar to the knife against secular science, even in its most elementary\nform; this rejection, without a moment's hesitation, of any and all\nevidence which conflicts with theological dogma--is the only position\nwhich is logically reconcilable with the axioms of orthodoxy. If the\nGospels truly report that which an incarnation of the God of Truth\ncommunicated to the world, then it surely is absurd to attend to any\nother evidence touching matters about which he made any clear statement,\nor the truth of which is distinctly implied by his words. If the exact\nhistorical truth of the Gospels is an axiom of Christianity, it is as\njust and right for a Christian to say, Let us \"close our ears against\nsuggestions\" of scientific critics, as it is for the man of science to\nrefuse to waste his time upon circle-squarers and flat-earth fanatics.\n\nIt is commonly reported that the manifesto by which the Canon of St.\nPaul's proclaims that he nails the colours of the straitest Biblical\ninfallibility to the mast of the ship ecclesiastical, was put forth as\na counterblast to \"Lux Mundi\"; and that the passages which I have more\nparticularly quoted are directed against the essay on \"The Holy Spirit\nand Inspiration\" in that collection of treatises by Anglican divines of\nhigh standing, who must assuredly be acquitted of conscious \"infidel\"\nproclivities. I fancy that rumour must, for once, be right, for it is\nimpossible to imagine a more direct and diametrical contradiction than\nthat between the passages from the sermon cited above and those which\nfollow:--\n\n   What is questioned is that our Lord's words foreclose certain\n   critical positions as to the character of Old Testament\n   literature. For example, does His use of Jonah's resurrection as\n   a _type_ of His own, depend in any real degree upon whether\n   it is historical fact or allegory?... Once more, our Lord uses\n   the time before the Flood, to illustrate the carelessness of men\n   before His own coming.... In referring to the Flood He\n   certainly suggests that He is treating it as typical, for He\n   introduces circumstances--\"eating and drinking, marrying and\n   giving in marriage \"--which have no counterpart in the original\n   narrative. (pp. 358-9).\n\nWhile insisting on the flow of inspiration through the whole of the Old\nTestament, the essayist does not admit its universality. Here, also, the\nnew apologetic demands a partial flood:\n\n   But does the inspiration of the recorder guarantee the exact\n   historical truth of what he records? And, in matter of fact, can\n   the record with due regard to legitimate historical criticism,\n   be pronounced true? Now, to the latter of these two questions\n   (and they are quite distinct questions) we may reply that there\n   is nothing to prevent our believing, as our faith strongly\n   disposes us to believe, that the record from Abraham downward\n   is, in substance, in the strict sense historical (p. 351).\n\nIt would appear, therefore, that there is nothing to prevent our\nbelieving that the record, from Abraham upward, consists of stories in\nthe strict sense unhistorical, and that the pre-Abrahamic narratives are\nmere moral and religious \"types\" and parables.\n\nI confess I soon lose my way when I try to follow those who walk\ndelicately among \"types\" and allegories. A certain passion for clearness\nforces me to ask, bluntly, whether the writer means to say that Jesus\ndid not believe the stories in question, or that he did? When Jesus\nspoke, as of a matter of fact, that \"the Flood came and destroyed them\nall,\" did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems\nto me that, as the narrative mentions Noah's wife, and his sons'\nwives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the\nantediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have\nthought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest\nbeliever in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask\nwhat sort of value, as an illustration of God's methods of dealing with\nsin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept\nthe careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry\nof \"Wolf\" when there is no wolf? If Jonah's three days' residence in the\nwhale is not an \"admitted reality,\" how could it \"warrant belief\" in\nthe \"coming resurrection?\" If Lot's wife was not turned into a pillar of\nsalt, the bidding those who turn back from the narrow path to \"remember\"\nit is, morally, about on a level with telling a naughty child that a\nbogy is coming to fetch it away. Suppose that a Conservative orator\nwarns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes,\nlest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre;\nwhat becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he,\npersonally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds\nattributed to him?\n\nLike all other attempts to reconcile the results of\nscientifically-conducted investigation with the demands of the outworn\ncreeds of ecclesiasticism, the essay on Inspiration is just such a\nfailure as must await mediation, when the mediator is unable properly\nto appreciate the weight of the evidence for the case of one of the two\nparties. The question of \"Inspiration\" really possesses no interest for\nthose who have cast ecclesiasticism and all its works aside, and have no\nfaith in any source of truth save that which is reached by the\npatient application of scientific methods. Theories of inspiration are\nspeculations as to the means by which the authors of statements, in the\nBible or elsewhere, have been led to say what they have said--and it\nassumes that natural agencies are insufficient for the purpose. I prefer\nto stop short of this problem, finding it more profitable to undertake\nthe inquiry which naturally precedes it--namely, Are these statements\ntrue or false? If they are true, it may be worth while to go into\nthe question of their supernatural generation; if they are false, it\ncertainly is not worth mine.\n\nNow, not only do I hold it to be proven that the story of the Deluge is\na pure fiction; but I have no hesitation in affirming the same thing of\nthe story of the Creation. [12] Between these two lies the story of the\ncreation of man and woman and their fall from primitive innocence,\nwhich is even more monstrously improbable than either of the other two,\nthough, from the nature of the case, it is not so easily capable of\ndirect refutation. It can be demonstrated that the earth took longer\nthan six days in the making, and that the Deluge, as described, is a\nphysical impossibility; but there is no proving, especially to those who\nare perfect in the art of closing their ears to that which they do not\nwish to hear, that a snake did not speak, or that Eve was not made out\nof one of Adam's ribs.\n\nThe compiler of Genesis, in its present form, evidently had a definite\nplan in his mind. His countrymen, like all other men, were doubtless\ncurious to know how the world began; how men, and especially wicked\nmen, came into being, and how existing nations and races arose among the\ndescendants of one stock; and, finally, what was the history of their\nown particular tribe. They, like ourselves, desired to solve the four\ngreat problems of cosmogeny, anthropogeny, ethnogeny, and geneogeny. The\nPentateuch furnishes the solutions which appeared satisfactory to its\nauthor. One of these, as we have seen, was borrowed from a Babylonian\nfable; and I know of no reason to suspect any different origin for the\nrest. Now, I would ask, is the story of the fabrication of Eve to be\nregarded as one of those pre-Abrahamic narratives, the historical truth\nof which is an open question, in face of the reference to it in a\nspeech unhappily famous for the legal oppression to which it has been\nwrongfully forced to lend itself?\n\n   Have ye not read, that he which made them from the beginning\n   made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man\n   leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the\n   twain shall become one flesh? (Matt. xix. 5.)\n\nIf divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of\nthe second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again,\nI ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as\na \"type\" or \"allegory,\" what becomes of the foundation of Pauline\ntheology?--\n\n   For since by man came death, by man came also the\n   resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in\n   Christ shall all be made alive (1 Corinthians xv. 21, 22).\n\nIf Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and\nif the story of the Fall is merely an instructive \"type,\" comparable to\nthe profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul's dialectic?\n\nWhile, therefore, every right-minded man must sympathise with the\nefforts of those theologians, who have not been able altogether to close\ntheir ears to the still, small, voice of reason, to escape from the\nfetters which ecclesiasticism has forged; the melancholy fact remains,\nthat the position they have taken up is hopelessly untenable. It is\nraked alike by the old-fashioned artillery of the churches and by\nthe fatal weapons of precision with which the _enfants perdus_ of the\nadvancing forces of science are armed. They must surrender, or fall back\ninto a more sheltered position. And it is possible that they may long\nfind safety in such retreat.\n\nIt is, indeed, probable that the proportional number of those who will\ndistinctly profess their belief in the transubstantiation of Lot's wife,\nand the anticipatory experience of submarine navigation by Jonah; in\nwater standing fathoms deep on the side of a declivity without anything\nto hold it up; and in devils who enter swine--will not increase. But\nneither is there ground for much hope that the proportion of those who\ncast aside these fictions and adopt the consequence of that repudiation,\nare, for some generations, likely to constitute a majority. Our age is\na day of compromises. The present and the near future seem given over\nto those happily, if curiously, constituted people who see as little\ndifficulty in throwing aside any amount of post-Abrahamic Scriptural\nnarrative, as the authors of \"Lux Mundi\" see in sacrificing the\npre-Abrahamic stories; and, having distilled away every inconvenient\nmatter of fact in Christian history, continue to pay divine honours to\nthe residue. There really seems to be no reason why the next generation\nshould not listen to a Bampton Lecture modelled upon that addressed to\nthe last:--\n\n   Time was--and that not very long ago--when all the relations of\n   Biblical authors concerning the whole world were received with a\n   ready belief; and an unreasoning and uncritical faith accepted\n   with equal satisfaction the narrative of the Captivity and the\n   doings of Moses at the court of Pharaoh, the account of the\n   Apostolic meeting in the Epistle to the Galatians, and that of\n   the fabrication of Eve. We can most of us remember when, in this\n   country, the whole story of the Exodus, and even the legend of\n   Jonah, were seriously placed before boys as history; and\n   discoursed of in as dogmatic a tone as the tale of Agincourt or\n   the history of the Norman Conquest.\n\n   But all this is now changed. The last century has seen the\n   growth of scientific criticism to its full strength. The whole\n   world of history has been revolutionised and the mythology which\n   embarrassed earnest Christians has vanished as an evil mist, the\n   lifting of which has only more fully revealed the lineaments of\n   infallible Truth. No longer in contact with fact of any kind,\n   Faith stands now and for ever proudly inaccessible to the\n   attacks of the infidel.\n\nSo far the apologist of the future. Why not? _Cantabit vacuus._\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: _Bampton Lectures_ (1859), on \"The Historical Evidence of\nthe Truth of the Scripture Records stated anew, with Special Reference\nto the Doubts and Discoveries of Modern Times,\" by the Rev. G.\nRawlinson, M.A., pp. 5-6.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _The Worth of the Old Testament,_ a Sermon preached in St.\nPaul's Cathedral on the second Sunday in Advent, 8th Dec., 1889, by\nH. P. Liddon, D.D., D.C.L., Canon and Chancellor of St. Paul's. Second\nedition revised and with a new preface, 1890.]\n\n[Footnote 3: St. Luke xvii. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 4: St. Luke xvii. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 5: St. Matt. xii. 40.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Bampton Lectures,_ 1859, pp. 50-51.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Commentary on Genesis,_ by the Bishop of Ely, p. 77.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Die Sintflut,_ 1876.]\n\n[Footnote 9: _Theologie und Naturwissenschaft,_ ii. 784-791 (1877).]\n\n[Footnote 10: It is very doubtful if this means the region of the\nArmenian Ararat. More probably it designates some part either of the\nKurdish range or of its south-eastern continuation.]\n\n[Footnote 11: So Reclus (_Nouvelle Geographie Universelle,_ ix. 386),\nbut I find the statement doubted by an authority of the first rank.]\n\n[Footnote 12: So far as I know, the narrative of the Creation is not now\nheld to be true, in the sense in which I have defined historical\ntruth, by any of the reconcilers. As for the attempts to stretch the\nPentateuchal days into periods of thousands or millions of years,\nthe verdict of the eminent Biblical scholar, Dr. Riehm (_Der\nbiblische Schopfungsbericht,_ 1881, pp. 15, 16) on such pranks of\n\"Auslegungskunst\" should be final. Why do the reconcilers take Goethe's\nadvice seriously?--\n\n     \"Im Auslegen seyd frisch und munter!\n      Legt ihr's nicht aus, so legt was unter.\"]","title":"The Lights of the Church and the Light of Science: Essay #6 from \"Science and Hebrew Tradition\"","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":9394}