This is a pretty and convenient theory, but it does not provide for every difficulty in the relationship between science and the Bible. There still remain the questions of miracles and witchcraft2.
Dr. Farrar does not discuss these questions thoroughly3. He only ventures a few observations. In his opinion, the two miracles of the Creation and the Incarnation "include the credibility of all other miracles." We agree with him. Admit creation out of nothing, and you need not be astonished at the transformation4 of water into wine. Admit the birth of a boy from a virgin5 mother, and you need not raise physiological6 objections to the story of a man being safely entertained for three days in a whale's intestines7. It is absurd to strain at gnats8 after swallowing camels. For this reason we are unable to understand Dr. Farrar's fastidiousness. He is ready to believe that some miracles are mistaken metaphors9, that some were due to the action of unnoticed or ill-understood natural causes, and that others were providential occurrences instead of supernatural events. All this, however, is but a concession10 to the sceptical spirit. It is throwing out the children to the wolves. It may stop their pursuit for a little while, but they will come on again, and flesh their jaws11 upon the parents.
A mixed criterion of true miracles is laid down by Dr. Farrar. They must be (1) adequately attested12, and (2) wrought13 for adequate ends, and (3) in accordance with the revealed laws of God's immediate14 dealings with man. The second and third conditions are too fanciful for discussion. They are, in fact, entirely15 subjective16. The first condition is the only one which can be applied17 with decisive accuracy. The miracles must be adequately attested. But was it not David Hume who declared that "in all history" there is not a single miracle attested in this manner? And did not Professor Huxley say that Hume's assertion was "least likely" to be challenged by those who are used to weighing evidence and giving their decision with a due sense of moral responsibility?
It is easy enough to sneer19 at Hume. It is just as easy to answer what he never said. What the apologists of Christianity have to do is to take a single miracle of their faith and show that it rests upon adequate evidence. Anything short of this is intellectual thimble-rigging.
Dr. Farrar does not face this dreadful task. He treats us, instead, to some personal observations on the Fall, the Tower of Babel, Balaam's ass18, Joshua's arrest of the sun and moon, and Jonah's submarine excursion. Let us examine these observations.
No Christian20, says Dr. Farrar, is called upon to believe in an actual Garden of Eden and an actual talking serpent. Christians21 have believed in these things by the million. But that was before the clergy22 invented "the Higher Criticism" to disarm23 "infidelity." They know better now. The story of the Fall is false as a narrative24. It is true as a "vivid pictorial25 representation of the origin and growth of sin in the human heart." All the literature of the world has failed to set forth26 anything "comparable to it in insight." Therefore it is "inspired."
How hollow this sounds when we recollect27 that the Hebrew story of the Fall was borrowed from the Persian mythology28! How much hollower when we consider it as it stands, stripped of the veil of fancy and divested29 of the glamor30 of association! The "insight" of the inspired writer could only represent God as the landlord of an orchard31, and man as a being with a taste for forbidden apples. The "philosopheme," as Dr. Farrar grandiosely32 styles it, is so absurd in its native nakedness that Rabbis and other divines have suspected a carnal mystery behind the apples, in order to give the "sin" of Adam and Eve a darker vein33 of sensuality.*
* We cannot elaborate this point in a publication which is
intended for general reading. Suffice it to say that one
Nor is this all. The very idea of a Fall is inconsistent with Evolution. The true Garden of Eden lies not behind us, but before us. The true Paradise is not the earth as God made it for man, but the earth as man is making it for himself. The Bible teaches the descent of man. Science teaches the ascent36 of man. And the two theories are the antipodes of each other, not only in physical history, but in every moral and spiritual implication.
With regard to the story of the tower of Babel, we must not regard it as an inspired account of the origin of the diversity of human language. That is what it appears to be upon the face of it. But philology37 has exploded this childish legend, and a new meaning must be read into it. According to Dr. Farrar, it is a "symbolic38 way of expressing the truth that God breaks up into separate nationalities the tyrannous organisation39 of cruel despotisms." Now we venture to say that there is not a suggestion of this in the text. And the "truth" which Dr. Farrar reads into it so arbitrarily is a phenomenon of modern times. Nationality is a great force at present, but in ancient days the only power that could bind40 tribes together in one polity was a military despotism. From the point of view of evolution, both conquest and slavery were inevitable41 steps in the progress of civilisation42. It is really nothing against the ancient Jews, for instance, that they fought like devils and made slaves of their enemies. It was the fashion of the time. The mischief43 comes in when we are told that their proceedings44 were under the sanction and control of God.
Dr. Farrar next tackles the story of Balaam, which is "another theme for ignorant ridicule45." It is astonishing how sublime46 these Bible wonders become in the light of the Higher Criticism. A talking ass sounds like an echo of the Arabian Nights. But the author himself never intended you to believe it. Dr. Farrar is quite sure of that. You must forget the ass, and fix your attention on Balaam. Then you perceive that the story is "rich in almost unrivalled elements of moral edification." That is to say, you perceive it if you borrow Dr. Farrar's spectacles. But if you look with your own naked eyes you see that ass in the foreground of the picture, with outstretched neck and open jaws, holding forth to an astonished universe.
With regard to Joshua's supreme47 miracle, Dr. Farrar avows48 his unbelief. A battle ode got mistaken for actual history. "He who chooses," says Dr. Farrar, "may believe that the most fundamental laws of the universe were arrested to enable Joshua to slaughter49 a few more hundred fugitives50; and he who chooses may believe that nothing of the kind ever entered into the mind of the narrator." You pay your money and take your choice. Shape the old wax nose as you please. Believe what you like, and disbelieve what you like—and swear the author disbelieved it too.
Nor must the story of Jonah be taken literally51. Regard the moral, and forget its fishy52 setting. Jesus Christ, indeed, referred to Jonah's sojourn53 in the "whale's belly54" as typical of his own sojourn in the heart of the earth. But referring to a story is no proof of any belief in its truth. Not in the Bible. Jesus Christ also said, "Remember Lot's wife." But of course he did not believe the story literally. He used it for his own purpose. For the rest, he did not wish to unsettle men's minds by throwing doubt on such a time-honored narrative; besides, the time had not arrived to explain the chemical composition of rock-salt.
Witchcraft is a more serious matter. The Bible plainly says, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." This text sealed the doom55 of millions of old women. It is the bloodiest56 text in all literature. The Jews believed in witchcraft, and the law against witches found its way into their sacred Scriptures57. Sir Matthew Hale, a great English judge and a good man, sentenced witches to be burnt in 1665, and said that he made no doubt at all that there were witches, for "the Scriptures had affirmed so much." Wesley, a century later, said that to give up witchcraft was to give up the Bible. Dr. Farrar sets down these facts honestly. He is also eloquent58 in reprobation59 of the cruelty inflicted60 on millions of "witches" in the Middle Ages. But he denies that the Bible is responsible for those infamies61. "Witches" in the Bible may not mean witches, but "nefarious62 impostors." Good old wax nose again! Moreover, that ancient Jewish law was not binding63 upon Christians, and to make it so was "a gross misuse64 of the Bible." But how on earth could the Christians use it in any other way? The time came when men outgrew65 the superstition66 of witchcraft. Before that time they killed witches on Bible authority. Dr. Farrar himself, had he lived then, would have done the same. Living in a more enlightened age, he says that former Christians acted wrongly, and in fact diabolically67. But what of the book which misled them? What of the book which, if it did not mislead them by design, harmonised so completely with their ignorant prejudices, and gave such a pious68 color to their unspeakable brutalities? Nor is this by any means the last word upon the subject. The witchcraft of the Old Testament69 has its counterpart in the demoniacal possession of the New Testament. Both are aspects of one and the same superstition.
The Bible is responsible for the cruel slaughter of millions of alleged70 witches. It is also responsible for the prolonged treatment of lunatics as possessed71. The methods of science are now adopted in civilised countries. Hysterical72 women are no longer tortured as witches. Lunatics are no longer chained and beaten as persons inhabited by devils. Kindness and common sense have taken the place of cruelty and superstition. This change was brought about, not through the Bible, but in spite of it.
Sir Matthew Hale and John Wesley were at least honest. They were too sincere to deny the plain teaching of the Bible. Dr. Farrar represents a more enlightened, but a more hypocritical, form of Christianity. He sneers73 at "reconcilers" like Mr. Gladstone, who try to bolster74 up the Creation story as a scientific revelation. But is he not a "reconciler" himself in regard to miracles? And does he not play fast and loose with truth and honesty in his attempt to clear the Bible of its guilty responsibility in connection with that witch mania75 which is one of the darkest episodes in Christian history?
点击收听单词发音
1 conjectured | |
推测,猜测,猜想( conjecture的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 witchcraft | |
n.魔法,巫术 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 thoroughly | |
adv.完全地,彻底地,十足地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 transformation | |
n.变化;改造;转变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 virgin | |
n.处女,未婚女子;adj.未经使用的;未经开发的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 physiological | |
adj.生理学的,生理学上的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 intestines | |
n.肠( intestine的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 gnats | |
n.叮人小虫( gnat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 metaphors | |
隐喻( metaphor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 concession | |
n.让步,妥协;特许(权) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 jaws | |
n.口部;嘴 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 attested | |
adj.经检验证明无病的,经检验证明无菌的v.证明( attest的过去式和过去分词 );证实;声称…属实;使宣誓 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 wrought | |
v.引起;以…原料制作;运转;adj.制造的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 immediate | |
adj.立即的;直接的,最接近的;紧靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 subjective | |
a.主观(上)的,个人的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 ass | |
n.驴;傻瓜,蠢笨的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 sneer | |
v.轻蔑;嘲笑;n.嘲笑,讥讽的言语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 Christians | |
n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 clergy | |
n.[总称]牧师,神职人员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 disarm | |
v.解除武装,回复平常的编制,缓和 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 narrative | |
n.叙述,故事;adj.叙事的,故事体的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 pictorial | |
adj.绘画的;图片的;n.画报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 recollect | |
v.回忆,想起,记起,忆起,记得 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 mythology | |
n.神话,神话学,神话集 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 divested | |
v.剥夺( divest的过去式和过去分词 );脱去(衣服);2。从…取去…;1。(给某人)脱衣服 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 glamor | |
n.魅力,吸引力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 orchard | |
n.果园,果园里的全部果树,(美俚)棒球场 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 grandiosely | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 vein | |
n.血管,静脉;叶脉,纹理;情绪;vt.使成脉络 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 commentator | |
n.注释者,解说者;实况广播评论员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 seduced | |
诱奸( seduce的过去式和过去分词 ); 勾引; 诱使堕落; 使入迷 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 ascent | |
n.(声望或地位)提高;上升,升高;登高 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 philology | |
n.语言学;语文学 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 symbolic | |
adj.象征性的,符号的,象征主义的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 organisation | |
n.组织,安排,团体,有机休 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 bind | |
vt.捆,包扎;装订;约束;使凝固;vi.变硬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 inevitable | |
adj.不可避免的,必然发生的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 civilisation | |
n.文明,文化,开化,教化 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 mischief | |
n.损害,伤害,危害;恶作剧,捣蛋,胡闹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 proceedings | |
n.进程,过程,议程;诉讼(程序);公报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 ridicule | |
v.讥讽,挖苦;n.嘲弄 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 sublime | |
adj.崇高的,伟大的;极度的,不顾后果的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 avows | |
v.公开声明,承认( avow的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 slaughter | |
n.屠杀,屠宰;vt.屠杀,宰杀 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 fugitives | |
n.亡命者,逃命者( fugitive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 literally | |
adv.照字面意义,逐字地;确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 fishy | |
adj. 值得怀疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 sojourn | |
v./n.旅居,寄居;逗留 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 belly | |
n.肚子,腹部;(像肚子一样)鼓起的部分,膛 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 doom | |
n.厄运,劫数;v.注定,命定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 bloodiest | |
adj.血污的( bloody的最高级 );流血的;屠杀的;残忍的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 scriptures | |
经文,圣典( scripture的名词复数 ); 经典 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 eloquent | |
adj.雄辩的,口才流利的;明白显示出的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 reprobation | |
n.斥责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 inflicted | |
把…强加给,使承受,遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 infamies | |
n.声名狼藉( infamy的名词复数 );臭名;丑恶;恶行 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 nefarious | |
adj.恶毒的,极坏的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 binding | |
有约束力的,有效的,应遵守的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 misuse | |
n.误用,滥用;vt.误用,滥用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 outgrew | |
长[发展] 得超过(某物)的范围( outgrow的过去式 ); 长[发展]得不能再要(某物); 长得比…快; 生长速度超过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 superstition | |
n.迷信,迷信行为 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 diabolically | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 pious | |
adj.虔诚的;道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 testament | |
n.遗嘱;证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 possessed | |
adj.疯狂的;拥有的,占有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 hysterical | |
adj.情绪异常激动的,歇斯底里般的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 sneers | |
讥笑的表情(言语)( sneer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 bolster | |
n.枕垫;v.支持,鼓励 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 mania | |
n.疯狂;躁狂症,狂热,癖好 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |