Deluge

DELUGE

That universal flood which was sent upon the earth in the time of Noah, and from which there were but eight persons saved. Moses’ account of this event is recorded in Gen 6:1-8 :22. See ARK OF NOAH. The sins of mankind were the cause of the deluge; and most commentators agree to place it B. C. 2348. After the door of the ark had been closed upon those that were to be saved, the deluge commenced: it rained forty days; “the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” All men and creatures living on the land perished, except Noah and those with him. For five months the waters continued to rise, and reached fifteen cubits above the highest summits to which any could fly for refuge; “a shoreless ocean tumble round the world.” At length the waters began to abate; the highest land appeared, and the ark touched ground upon Mount Ararat. In three months more the hills began to appear. Forty days after, Noah tested the state of the earth’s surface by sending out a raven; and then thrice, at intervals of a week, a dove. At length he removed the covering of the ark, and found the flood had disappeared; he came forth from the ark, reared an altar, and offered sacrifices to God, who appointed the rainbow as a pledge that he would no more destroy mankind with a fool.Since all nations have descended from the family then preserved in the ark, it is natural that the memory of such an event should be perpetuated in various national traditions. Such is indeed the fact. These traditions have been found among the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Greeks, Hindoos, Chinese, Japanese, Scythians, and Celts, and in the western hemisphere among the Mexicans, Peruvians, and South sea islanders. Much labor has been expanded in searching for natural causes adequate to the production of a deluge; but we should beware of endeavoring to account on natural principles for that which the Bible represents as miraculous.In the New Testament, the deluge is spoken of as a stupendous exhibition of divine power, like the creation and the final burning of the world. It is applied to illustrate the long suffering of God, and assure us of his judgment on sin, 2Pe 3:5-7, and of the second coming of Christ, Mat 24:38 .

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Deluge

See Flood.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

DELUGE

The flood which overflowed and destroyed the earth. This flood makes one of the most considerable epochas in chronology. Its history is given by Moses, Gen 6:7 : Its time is fixed by the best chronologers to the year from the creation 1656, answering to the year before Christ 2293. From this flood, the state of the world is divided into diluvian and ante-diluvian. Men who have not paid that regard to sacred history as it deserves, have cavilled at the account given of an universal deluge. Their objections principally turn upon three points:

1. The want of any direct history of that event by the profane writers of antiquity.

2. The apparent impossibility of accounting for the quantity of water necessary to overflow the whole earth to such a depth as it is said to have been.

And,

3. There appearing no necessity for an universal deluge, as the same end might have been accomplished by a partial one. To the above arguments we oppose the plain declarations of Scripture. God declared to Noah that he was resolved to destroy every thing that had breath under heaven, or had life on the earth, by a flood of waters; such was the threatening, such was the execution. the waters, Moses assures us, covered the whole earth, buried all the mountains; every thing perished therein that had life, excepting Noah and those with him in the ark. Can an universal deluge be more clearly expressed? If the deluge had only been partial, there had been no necessity to spend an hundred years in the building of an ark, and shutting up all sorts of animals therein, in order to re-stock the world: they had been easily and readily brought from those parts of the world not overflowed into those that were; at least, all the birds never would have been destroyed, as Moses says they were, so long as they had wings to bear them to those parts where the flood did not reach.

If the waters had only overflowed the neighbourhood of the Euphrates and the Tigris, they could not be fifteen cubits above the highest mountains; there was no rising that height but they must spread themselves, by the laws of gravity, over the rest of the earth; unless perhaps they had been retained there by a miracle; in that case, Moses, no doubt, would have related the miracle, as he did that of the waters of the Red Sea, &c. It may also be observed, that in regions far remote from the Euphrates and Tigris, viz. Italy, France, Switzerland, Germany, England, &c. there are frequently found in places many scores of leagues from the sea, and even in the tops of high mountains, whole trees sunk deep under ground, as also teeth and bones of animals, fishes entire, sea-shells, ears of corn, &c. petrified; which the best naturalists are agreed could never have come there but by the deluge. That the Greeks and western nations had some knowledge of the flood, has never been denied; and the Mussulmen, Chinese, and Americans, have traditions of the deluge.

The ingenious Mr. Bryant, in his Mythology, has pretty clearly proved that the deluge, so far from being unknown to the heathen world at large, is in reality conspicuous throughout every one of their acts of religious worship. In India, also, Sir William Jones has discovered, that in the oldest mythological books of that country, there is such an account of the deluge, as corresponds sufficiently with that of Moses. Various have been the conjectures of learned men as to the natural causes of the deluge. Some have supposed that a quantity of water was created on purpose, and at a proper time annihilated by Divine power. Dr. Burnet supposes the primitive earth to have been no more than a crust investing the water contained in the ocean; and in the central abyss which he and others suppose to exist in the bowels of the earth at the time of the flood, this outward crust broke in a thousand pieces, and sunk down among the water, which thus spouted up in vast cataracts, and overflowed the whole surface.

Others, supposing a sufficient fund of water in the sea or abyss, think that the shifting of the earth’s centre of gravity drew after it the water out of the channel, and overwhelmed the several parts of the earth successively. Others ascribe it to the shock of a comet, and Mr. King supposes it to arise from subterraneous fires bursting forth with great violence under the sea. But are not most, if not all these hypotheses quite arbitrary, and without foundation from the words of Moses? It is, perhaps, in vain to attempt accounting for this event by natural causes, it being altogether miraculous and supernatural, as a punishment to men for the corruption then in the world. Let us be satisfied with the sources which Moses gives us, namely, the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the waters rushed out from the hidden abyss of the bowels of the earth, and the clouds poured down their rain incessantly. Let it suffice us to know, that all the elements are under God’s power; that he can do with them as he pleases, and frequently in ways we are ignorant of, in order to accomplish his own purposes. The principal writers on this subject have been Woodyard, Cockburn, Bryant, Burnett, Whiston, Stillingfleet, King, Calcott and Tytler.

Fuente: Theological Dictionary

Deluge

Deluge is the name of a catastrophe fully described in Gen., vi, 1-ix, 19, and referred to in the following passages of Sacred Scripture: Wisd., x, 4; xiv, 6-7; Ecclus., xvi, 8, xliv, 17-19; Is., liv, 9; Matt., xxiv, 37-39; Luke, xvii, 26-27; Hebr., xi, 7; I Peter, iii, 20-21; II Peter, ii, 5. In the present article we shall consider: I. The Biblical Account; II. Its Historicity; III. The Universality of the Flood; IV. Collateral Questions.

I. BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE DELUGE

The Book of Genesis gives the following brief account of the Deluge: God sees the wickedness of men, and determines to destroy them excepting Noe and his family (vi, 1-8). He reveals his decree to Noe and instructs him how he may save himself and the seed of all animal life by means of an ark to be built according to certain dimensions (vi, 9-22). Seven days before the Flood, God commands the patriarch to enter the ark (vii, 1-5). Noe completes his entrance into the ark on the very day on which the Flood begins; the rain falls for forty days and nights; all living things outside the ark are destroyed; the waters prevail upon the earth a hundred and fifty days (vii, 6-24). The waters decrease, the earth dries up; Noe ascertains its condition by means of a raven and a dove sent out from the ark (viii, 1-14). Noe obeys the Divine command to leave the ark, builds an altar, offers sacrifice, makes a covenant with God, and begins to be a husbandman (ix, 1-27).

Simple as this account seems to be, the Biblical critics maintain that it is a mosaic made up of two Flood stories, differing in authorship and in contents. They assign one to the Yahwistic writer usually designated by the letter J; the other, to the post-exilic priestly writer generally known as P. According to Kautzsch, the sections vi, 1-8; vii, 1-5, 7-10, 12, 16b-17, 22-23; viii, 2b-3a, 6-12, 13b, 20-22; ix, 18-27, belong to J, while P claims vi, 9-22; vii, 6, 11, 13-16a, 18-21; vii, 24-viii, 2a; viii, 3b-5, 13a, 14-19; ix, 1-17. This division of the text is based on the following grounds: J uses the divine name Yahweh, P employs Elohim; J and P narrate the same series of events; J and P differ in language; J and P disagree in their statements.

The composite character of the Flood story does not conflict with its Mosaic authorship. The most conservative Bible student will grant that Moses was not an eye-witness of the Deluge. Prescinding from Divine revelation, he must have derived his information about the event either from tradition or from written documents. If Biblical criticism has succeeded in restoring the main sources utilized by Moses in his history of the Flood, it has rendered a most signal service to exegesis. Happily we are in the position to be able to control the value of the critical conclusions by means of the Babylonian or Akkadian account of the Deluge. Without delaying over its form as contained in the fragments of Berosus which are of comparatively recent date, we find that the version given in a cuneiform inscription on tablets preserved in the British Museum, and first deciphered by George Smith in 1872, contains a combination of the P and J elements of the Flood story. This version is said by experts to date back at least to about 3000 B. C. It is certain, therefore, that the so-called P and J documents reconstructed by the critics were combined long before the Biblical text was put in writing. This fact is confirmed by a Deluge story contained in Scheil’s recently discovered fragment, which cannot be dated much later than 2140 B. C. Critics can no longer deny the existence of a Flood tradition similar to the history contained in the Book of Genesis, antedating our Biblical account. In order to uphold their division of the inspired text into the so-called J and P documents, they maintain that the Akkadian story was copied partially in the J and partially in the P documents, and that the Biblical “Redactor” reunited these two partial accounts into one. This series of assumptions, however, is at best an awkward attempt to explain away a fact which stands in the way of their theory. But we are prepared to admit the critical division of the Flood account in spite of its disagreement with the results of recent discoveries, if the critical arguments are really cogent.

(1) We are told the J uses the Divine name Yahweh, while P employs Elohim. But the following considerations must be kept in mind: First, we are hardly sufficiently sure of the use of the Divine names in the primitive inspired text to build a solid argument on their occurrence in the present text-form. Secondly, in the present text-form Elohim occurs twice in the Yahwistic document, vi, 2, and vii, 9. Thirdly, six passages in the section vii, 16-viii, 20, are assigned to the Yahwistic writer, though the name Yahweh does not occur once. Fourthly, the variation of the Divine names in the Deluge story can be explained satisfactorily without resorting to the violent measure of dividing up the text between two distinct writers.

(2) It is alleged that J and P report the same events. If we examine the two documents as reconstructed by the critics, in the light of this contention, we find that they are fragmentary and that they do not contain two series of events. J passes from God’s determination to destroy the world (vi, 1-8) to the Divine command that Noe should enter the ark without telling him where to find or how to procure an ark (vii, 1-5). Noe builds an altar and offers burnt offerings without leaving the ark (viii, 20). P does not inform us of the real nature of the corruption of all flesh (vi, 9-12); he knows of God’s order to save the animals, but knows nothing of God’s command concerning Noe and his family (vi, 17-22; vii, 13); even eleven months after the beginning of the Flood and two months after the appearance of the tops of the mountains, he knows of no attempt on the part of Noe to ascertain the condition 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 the Biblical account. But if the “Redactor” omitted certain parts of the original documents in order to avoid repetitions, why did he not omit the repetitions discovered by the critics? Or are we to assume that he introduced certain repetitions, while he carefully avoided others? Is it not more likely that he considered 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) J and P are said to differ in language; but the critical division being what it is, it would be strange if the two documents 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 assigned to him, which would admit such a treatment? The care with which only set subjects and determined expressions are assigned to J and P respectively is well illustrated by the fact that in spite of their minute dissection of the Flood story, the critics must remove part of vi, 7; vii, 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 duration of the 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 relates the more accurate Divine specification, “of all clean beasts 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, 15, 16, 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 and P is more artificial than true; there is no inconsistency in the chronology of the Biblical account of the Flood, so that the discrepancy between the documents, if there be one, is of critical manufacture. Besides, a simple reading of the J document taken separately will show that its chronology is not satisfactory. Finally, if in ix, 15, P knows of a Divine covenant which according to J is the result of the self-deliberation of Yahweh in consequence of the patriarch’s sacrifice (viii, 21-22), the two documents are rather supplementary than contradictory; J supplies the ethical motive for God’s action as described by P.

II. HISTORICITY OF THE BIBLICAL DELUGE ACCOUNT

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 them. And on inquiring into their origin, we find that four theories have been advanced: The Flood story is a mere product of fancy. This theory contradicts the analogy of similar legends among all peoples. The Deluge story is by others considered as a nature-myth, representing the phenomena of winter, which in Babylonia especially is the time of rain. This nature-myth again is by some writers believed to have grown out of an archaic ether-myth, 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 inundation of great rivers, transferred the myth 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. Connected with the preceding theory is the explanation which makes the Deluge story a cosmogonic fable. It has been seen that the hero rescued in the ship must have been the sun-god (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 personified as a serpent; it is the same monster which is a central figure in the Creation story. We need not add that this theory too leaves the great bulk of the existing Flood traditions unexplained. 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, unless 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 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.

(a) The following are some of the New Testament passages which imply that the Deluge was a real historical 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, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day 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” (Matthew 24:37-39). In these words Christ regards the Flood with its circumstances as being not less real than the last days will be of which He speaks in the passage. The same view concerning the Flood, Christ implies in Luke, xvii, 26-27. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi, 7) the inspired writer is not less clear about the historicity of the Flood: “By faith, Noe having received an answer concerning those things which as yet were not seen, moved with fear, framed the ark for the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world; and was instituted heir of the justice which is by faith.” St. Peter (1 Peter 3:20) too refers to the ark and the Flood as historical facts: “When they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water”. He returns to the same teaching in II Peter, ii, 5. We might appeal to Is., liv, 9; Nah., i, 8; Ezech., xiv, 14; Ecclus., xliv, 18 sq.; Ps. xxviii, 10; xxxi, 6; but what has been said sufficiently shows that the Bible urges the historicity of the Deluge story.

(b) As to the view of Christian tradition, it suffices to appeal here to the words of Father Zorell who maintains that the Bible story concerning the Flood has never been explained or understood in any but a truly historical sense by any Catholic writer (cf. Hagen, Lexicon Biblicum). It would be useless labour and would exceed the scope of the present article to enumerate the long list of Fathers and Scholastic theologians who have touched upon the question. The few stray discordant voices belonging to the last fifteen or twenty years are simply drowned in this unanimous chorus of Christian tradition.

(c) The historicity of the Biblical Flood account is confirmed by the tradition existing in all places and at all times as to the occurrence of a similar catastrophe. F. von Schwarz (Sintfluth und Völkerwanderungen, pp. 8-18) enumerates sixty-three such Flood stories which are in his opinion independent of the Biblical account. R. Andree (Die Flutsagen ethnographisch betrachtet) discusses eighty-eight different Flood stories, and considers sixty-two of them as independent of the Chaldee and Hebrew tradition. Moreover, these stories extend through all the races of the earth excepting the African; these are excepted, not because it is certain that they do not possess any Flood traditions, but because their traditions have not as yet been sufficiently investigated. Lenormant pronounces the Flood story as the most universal tradition in the history of primitive man, and Franz Delitzsch was of opinion that we might as well consider the history of Alexander the Great a myth, as to call the Flood tradition a fable. It would, indeed, be a greater miracle than that of the Deluge itself, if the various and different conditions surrounding the several nations of the earth had produced among them a tradition substantially identical. Opposite causes would have produced the same effect.

III. UNIVERSALITY OF THE DELUGE

The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality to the Flood. But it may have been geographically universal, or it may have been only anthropologically universal. In other words, the Flood may have covered the whole earth, or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a certain part of the earth. Till about the seventeenth century, it was generally believed that the Deluge had been geographically universal, and this opinion is defended even in our days by some conservative scholars (cf. Kaulen in Kirchenlexikon). But two hundred years of theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:

(1) The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned.

Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.

(a) The words of the original text, rendered “earth” in our version, signify “land” as well as “earth”; in fact, “land” appears to have been their primary meaning, and this meaning fits in admirably with Gen., iv, v, and Gen., x; why not adhere to this meaning also in Gen., vi-ix, or the Flood story. Why not read, the waters “filled all on the face of the land”, “all flesh was destroyed that moved in the land”, “all things wherein there is the breath of life in the land died”, “all the high mountains under the whole heaven (corresponding to the land) were covered”? The primary meaning of the inspired text urges therefore a universality of the flood covering the whole land or region in which Noe lived, but not the whole earth.

(b) As to the cogency of the proof from tradition for the geographical universality of the Flood, it must be remembered that very few of the Fathers touched upon this question ex professo. Among those who do so there are some who restrict the Deluge to certain parts of the earth’s surface without incurring the blame of offending against tradition. The earthly paradise, e.g., was exempted by many, irrespective of its location on the top of a high mountain or elsewhere; the same must be said of the place in which Mathusala must have lived during the Flood according to the Septuagint reading; St. Augustine knows of writers who exempted the mountain Olympus from the Flood, though he himself does not agree with them; Pseudo-Justin hesitatingly rejects the opinion of those who restrict the Flood to the parts of the earth actually inhabited by men; Cajetan revived the opinion that the Flood did not cover Olympus and other high mountains, believing that Genesis spoke only of the mountains under the aerial heaven; Tostatus sees a figure of speech in the expression of the Bible which implies the universality of the Flood; at any rate, he exempts the earthly Paradise from the Deluge, since Henoch had to be saved. If the Fathers had considered the universality of the Flood as part of the body of ecclesiastical tradition, or of the deposit of faith, they would have defended it more vigorously. It is true that the Congregation of the Index condemned Vossius’s treatise “De Septuaginta Interpretibus” in which he defended, among other doctrines, the view that the Flood covered only the inhabited part of the earth; but theologians of great weight maintained that the work was condemned on account of its Protestant author, and not on account of its doctrine.

(c) There are also certain scientific considerations which oppose the view that the Flood was geographically universal. Not that science opposes any difficulty insuperable to the power of God; but it draws attention to a number of most extraordinary, if not miraculous phenomena involved in the admission of a geographically universal Deluge. First, no such geological traces can be found as ought to have been left by a universal Deluge; for the catastrophe connected with the beginning of the ice-age, or the geological deluge, must not be connected with the Biblical. Secondly, the amount of water required by a universal Deluge, as described in the Bible, cannot be accounted for by the data furnished in the Biblical account. If the surface of the earth, in round numbers, amounts to 510,000,000 square kilometres, and if the elevation of the highest mountains reaches about 9000 metres, the water required by the Biblical Flood, if it be universal, amounts to about 4,600,000,000 cubic kilometres. Now, a forty days’ rain, ten times more copious than the most violent rainfall known to us, will raise the level of the sea only about 800 metres; since the height to be attained is about 9000 metres, there is still a gap to be filled by unknown sources amounting to a height of more than 8000 metres, in order to raise the water to the level of the greatest mountains. Thirdly, if the Biblical Deluge was geographically universal, the sea water and the fresh water would mix to such an extent that neither the marine animals nor the fresh-water animals could have lived in the mixture without a miracle. Fourthly, there are serious difficulties connected with the animals in the ark, if the Flood was geographically universal: How were they brought to Noe from the remote regions of the earth in which they lived? How could eight persons take care of such an array of beasts? Where did they obtain the food necessary for all the animals? How could the arctic animals live with those of the torrid zone for a whole year and under the same roof? No Catholic commentator will repudiate an explanation merely for fear of having to admit a miracle; but no Catholic has a right to admit Biblical miracles which are not well attested either by Scripture or tradition. What is more, there are traces in the Biblical Flood story which favour a limited extent of the catastrophe: Noe could have known the geographical universality of the Deluge only by revelation; still the Biblical account appears to have been written by an eye-witness. If the Flood had been universal, the water would have had to fall from the height of the mountains in India to the level of those in Armenia on which the ark rested, i.e. about 11,500 feet, within the space of a few days. The fact that the dove is said to have found “the waters . . . upon the whole earth”, and that Noe “saw that the face of the earth was dried”, leaves the impression that the inspired writer uses the word “earth” in the restricted sense of “land”. Attention has been drawn also to the “bough of an olive tree, with green leaves” carried by the dove in her mouth on her second return to the ark.

(2) The Deluge must have been anthropologically universal, i.e. it must have destroyed the whole human race.

After limiting the extent of the Flood to a part of the earth, we naturally ask whether any men lived outside the region covered by its waters. It has been maintained that not all men can have perished in the Flood for the following reasons: Tribes which certainly sprang from Noe were preceded in their earliest settlements by other tribes whose origin is unknown to us: the Dravidic tribes preceded the Aryans in India; the proto-Medians preceded the Medians; the Akkadians preceded the Cushites and Semites in Chaldea; the Chanaanites were preceded in Palestine by other races. Besides, the oldest Egyptian monuments present the Negro race just as we find it to-day, so that even at that remote age, it was wholly different from the Caucasian race. Again, the languages of the races springing from Noe are said to be in a state of development different from that in which we find the languages of the peoples of unknown origin. Finally, the Biblical account of the Flood is said to admit a restriction of its anthropological universality as readily as a limitation of its geographical completeness; for if “land” be substituted in our translation for earth, the Book of Genesis speaks only of the men inhabiting a certain district, and not of the men of the whole earth, as being the victims of the waters. Considerations like these have induced several Catholic writers to regard as quite tenable the opinion that the Deluge did not destroy all men outside the ark.

But if the reason advanced for limiting the Flood to a certain part of the human race be duly examined, they are found to be more specious than true. The above scientific arguments do not favour a partial destruction of the human race absolutely, but only in so far as the uninterrupted existence of the various races in question gives them more time for the racial development and the historical data that have to be harmonized with the text of Genesis. Those who urge these arguments grant, therefore, implicitly that the allowance of a proper length of time will explain the facts on which their arguments are based. As there is nothing in the teaching of the Bible preventing us from assigning the Flood to a much earlier date than has usually been done, the difficulties urged on the part of science against the anthropological universality of the Flood may be easily evaded. Nor can the distribution of the nations as described in the tenth chapter of Genesis be appealed to, seeing that this section does not enumerate all races of the earth, but confines itself probably to the Caucasian.

Science, therefore, may demand an early date for the Deluge, but it does not necessitate a limitation of the Flood to certain parts of the human race. The question, whether all men perished in the Deluge, must be decided by the teaching of the Bible, and of its authoritative interpreter. As to the teachings of the Bible, the passage which deals ex professo with the Flood (Genesis 6-9), if taken by itself, may be interpreted of a partial destruction of man; it insists on the fact that all inhabitants of the “land”, not of the “earth”, died in the waters of the Deluge, and it does not explicitly tell us whether all men lived in the “land”. It may also be granted, that of the passages which refer incidentally to the flood, Wis., x, 4; xiv, 6; Ecclus., xliv, 17 sqq., and Matt., xxiv, 37 sqq., may be explained, more or less satisfactorily, of a partial destruction of the human race by the inundation of the Deluge; but no one can deny that the prima facie meaning of I Peter, iii, 20 sq., II Peter, ii, 4-9, and II Peter, iii, 5 sqq., refers to the death of all men not contained in the ark. The explanations of these passages, offered by the opponents of the anthropological universality of the Deluge, are hardly sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt. We turn, therefore, to authority in order to arrive at a final settlement of the question. Here we are confronted, in brief, with the following facts: Up to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the belief in the anthropological universality of the Deluge was general. Moreover, the Fathers regarded the ark and the Flood as types of baptism and of the Church; this view they entertained not as a private opinion, but as a development of the doctrine contained in I Peter, iii, 20 sq. Hence, the typical character of both ark and Flood belongs to the “matters of faith and morals” in which the Tridentine and the Vatican Councils oblige all Catholics to follow the interpretation of the Church.

IV. COLLATERAL QUESTIONS

These may be reduced to the time of the Deluge, its place, and its natural causes.

(1) Time of the Deluge

Genesis places the Deluge in the six-hundredth year of Noe; the Masoretic text assigns it to the year 1656 after the creation, the Samaritan to 1307, the Septuagint to 2242, Flavius Josephus to 2256. Again, the Masoretic text places it in B. C. 2350 (Klaproth) or 2253 (Lüken), the Samaritan in 2903, the Septuagint in 3134. According to the ancient traditions (Lüken), the Assyrians placed the Deluge in 2234 B. C. or 2316, the Greeks in 2300, the Egyptians in 2600, the Phoenicians in 2700, the Mexicans in 2900, the Indians in 3100, the Chinese in 2297, while the Armenians assigned the building of the Tower of Babel to about 2200 B. C. But as we have seen, we must be prepared to assign earlier dates to these events.

(2) Place of the Flood

The Bible teaches only that the ark rested on a mountain in Armenia. Hence the Flood must have occurred in a place whence the ark could be carried towards this mountain. The Babylonian tradition places the Deluge in the lower valley of the Tigris and Euphrates.

(3) Natural Causes of the Flood

Scripture assigns as the causes of the Deluge the heavy forty days’ rains, the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, and the opening of the flood-gates of heaven. This does not exclude the opinion that certain natural forces were at play in the catastrophe. It has been suggested that the axis of the earth was shifted on account of the earth’s collision with a comet, or that powerful volcanic eruptions raised new mountains in the sea, or that an earthquake caused a tidal wave to overrun certain portions of the dry land. Thus, Süss speaks of the frequency of earthquakes and of storms in the Gulf of Persia; but this would enclose the Flood within too narrow limits both of space and of time. Another conjecture has been proposed by von Schwartz. He supposes that an inland Mongolian sea, in size about equal to the Mediterranean, situated at a height of about 6000 feet above the level of the ocean and 5000 feet above the surrounding Aralo-Caspian plain, at the time of an earthquake broke through one of its walls, and sent its 3,000,000 cubic kilometres of water into the region north of Persia, Armenia, and the Caucasus, covering the whole plain, until the waters were drained by way of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean into the Atlantic Ocean. Here we have the breaking of the bonds of the great deep, we have an outflow of water lasting for several months, and we find that the ark must have been carried westward by the general drift of the waters till it rested on the mountains of Armenia. But not to mention the improbability of the supposition urged by several scientists, we do not understand why the tops of the mountains should not have been visible even after the mooring of the ark. A number of other hypotheses have been proposed in order to explain by natural causes the phenomena implied in the Biblical account of the Deluge, but thus far they have not satisfied the various details given in the Book of Genesis.

———————————–

Complete bibliographies may be found in VON HUMMELAUER, Commentarius in Genesim (Paris,1895); MANGENOT in Vig., Dict. de la Bible (Paris 1899) II; CORNELY, Introductio (2nd ed. Paris, 1887), II, Pt. I, 161; HAGEN, Lexicum Biblicum (Paris, 1907), II; DE RÉGNON, Le déluge biblique et les races antédiluviennes; SCHÖPFER, Geschichte d. A. T. (3rd ed. Brixen, 1902); WOODS, Dict. of the Bible (New York, 1900), II; LÜKEN, Die Traditionen des Menschengeschlechts (Münster, 1869); ANDREE, Die Flutsagen ethnographisch betrachtet (Brunswick, 1891); VON SCHWARZ, Sintfluth und Völkerwanderungen (Stuttgart. 1894); PRESTWICH, On Certain Phenomena Belonging to the Close of the Last Geological Period (New York, 1895); SÜSS, Das Antlitz der Erde (Prague, 1883); MILLER, Testimony of the Rocks, 1858; KAULEN in Kirchenlexikon; REUSCH, Bibel und Natur (4th ed., Bonn, 1876); The Tablet (London, 1884), flIes.

A.J. MAAS Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IVCopyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Deluge

a term specifically applied in modern times to Noah’s flood, as related in Gen 7:8. SEE FLOOD.

I. Biblical History of the Flood. The sacred historian informs us that in the ninth generation from Adam, when the race of man had greatly multiplied on the face of the earth, wickedness of every kind had fearfully increased, that every imagination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil continually, that the earth was filled with violence, and that to such a degree of depravity had the whole race come, that it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. We are further told, in graphic and impressive language, that the Creator determined to purge the earth from the presence of the creature whom he had made. I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. SEE ANTHIOPOMORPHISM.

In the midst of a world of crime and guilt there was, however, one household, that of Noah, in which the fear of God still remained. Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations, and walked with God. And Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. He was commanded to make an ark of gopher wood, three hundred cubits long, fifty broad, and thirty high. Into this large vessel he was to collect a pair of every living thing of all flesh, fowls, cattle, and creeping things after their kind, along with a suitable amount of food. He was to enter it himself, taking with him his wife, and his three sons with their wives, but with no other human company. The reason of these preparations was made known in the solemn decree. Behold I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die. The ark thus commissioned was slowly prepared by Noah. See ARK. At length, in the six hundredth year of his age, the ark was finished, and all its living freight was gathered into it as in a place of safety. Jehovah shut him in, says the chronicler, speaking of Noah. And then there ensued a solemn pause of seven days before the threatened destruction was let loose. At last the flood came; the waters were upon the earth. The narrative is vivid and forcible, though entirely wanting in that sort of description which in a modern historian or poet would have occupied the largest space. We see nothing of the death-struggle; we hear not the cry of despair; we are not called upon to witness the frantic agony of husband and wife, and parent and child, as they fled in terror before the rising waters. Nor is a word said of the sadness of the one righteous man who, safe himself, looked upon the destruction which he could not avert. But one impression is left upon the mind with peculiar vividness, from the very simplicity of the narrative, and it is that of utter desolation. This is heightened by the contrast and repetition of the two ideas. On the one hand we are reminded no less than six times in the narrative in chaps. 6, 7, 8, who the tenants of the ark were (Gen 6:18-21; Gen 7:1-3; Gen 7:7-9; Gen 7:13-16; Gen 8:16-19), the favored and rescued few; and, on the other hand, the total and absolute blotting out of everything else is not less emphatically dwelt upon (Gen 6:13; Gen 6:17; Gen 7:4; Gen 7:21-23).

This evidently designed contrast may especially be traced in chap. 7. First, we read in Gen 7:6, And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood came waters upon the earth. Then follows an account of Noah aid his family and the animals entering into the ark. Next Gen 7:10-12 resume the subject of Gen 7:7 : And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on tne seltsame day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows (or floodgates) of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. Again the narrative returns to Noah and his companions, and their safety in the ark (Gen 7:13-16). And then in Gen 7:17 the words of Gen 7:12 are resumed, and from thence to the end of the chapter a very simple but very powerful and impressive description is given of the appalling catastrophe,: And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased and bare up the ark, and it was lift up from off the earth. And the waters prevailed and increased exceedingly upon the earth: and the ark went on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed very exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high mountains which [were] under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died which moveth upon the earth, of fowl, and of cattle, and of wild beasts, and of every creeping thing which creepeth upon the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every substance which was on the face of the ground was blotted out, as well man as cattle, and creeping thing and fowl of the heaven: they were blotted out from the earth, and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed on the earth a hundred and fifty days. The waters of the Flood increased for a period of 190 days (40+150, comparing 7:12 and 24). And then God remembered Noah, and made a wind to pass over the earth, so that the waters were assuaged. The ark rested on the seventeenth day of the seventh month on the mountains of Ararat. After this the waters gradually decreased till the first day of the tenth month, when the tops of the mountains were seen. It was then that Noah sent forth, first, the raven, which flew hither and thither, resting probably on the mountain-tops, but not returning to the ark; and next (? after an interval of seven days; comp. Gen 7:10), the dove, to see if the waters were abated from the ground (i.e. the lower plain country). But the dove, it is beautifully said, found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark. After waiting for another seven days he again sent forth the dove, which returned this time with a fresh () olive-leaf in her mouth, a sign that the waters were still lower. Once more, after another interval of seven days, he sent forth the dove, and she returned not again unto him any more, having found a home for herself upon the earth. No picture in natural history was ever drawn with more exquisite beauty and fidelity than this: it is admirable alike for its poetry and its truth. Respecting two points, we may here remark (1) that the raven was supposed to foretell changes in the weather both by its flight and its cry (AElian, II. A. 7:7; Virg. Georg. 1:382, 410). According to Jewish tradition, the raven was preserved in the ark in order to be the progenitor of the birds which afterwards fed Elijah by the brook Cherith. (2) The olive-tree is an evergreen, and seems to have the power of living under water, according to Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. 4:8) and Pliny (H. N. 13:50), who mention olive-trees in the Red Sea. The olive grows in Armenia, but only in the valleys on the south side of Ararat, not on the slopes of the mountain. It will not flourish at an elevation where even the mulberry, walnut, and apricot are found (Ritter, Erdkunde, 10:920).

According to a careful adjustment of the chronology of the Hebrew Bible, the Noachian deluge appears to have occurred (begun) in the year from the creation of Adam 1657, and before Christ 2516. It continued twelve lunar months and ten days, or exactly one solar year (Browne, Ordo Saeclorum, p. 325 sq.), as the following tabular exhibit of the incidents will show:

The word specially used to designate the Flood of Noah (, ham- mabbul’) occurs in only one other passage of Scripture (Psa 29:10). The poet there sings of the majesty of God as seen in the storm. It is not improbable that the heavy rain accompanying the thunder and lightning had been such as to swell the torrents, and perhaps cause a partial inundation. This carried back his thoughts to the great flood of which he had often read, and he sang, Jehovah sat as king at the Flood, and looking up at the clear face of the sky, and on the freshness and glory of nature around him, he added, and Jehovah remaineth a king forever. In Isa 54:9, the Flood is spoken of as the waters of Noah. God himself appeals to his promise made after the Flood as a pledge of his faithfulness to Israel: For this is as the waters of Noah unto me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee nor rebuke thee.

In the N.T. our Lord gives the sanction of his own authority to the historical truth of the narrative, Mat 24:37 (comp. Luk 17:26), declaring that the state of the world at his second coming shall be such as it was in the days of Noah. Peter speaks of the long suffering of God, which waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. and sees in the waters of the flood by which the ark was borne up a type of baptism, by which the Church is separated from the world. Again, in his second Epistle (2. 5), he cites it as an instance of the righteous judgment of God, who spared not the old world, etc.

II. Traditions. The legends of many nations have preserved the memory of a great and destructive flood from which but a small part of mankind escaped. It is not always very clear whether they point back to a common center, whence they were carried by the different families of men as they wandered east and west, or whether they were of national growth, and embody merely records of catastrophes, such as especially in mountainous countries are of no rare occurrence. In some instances, no doubt, the resemblances, between the heathen and the Jewish stories are so striking as to render it morally certain that the former were borrowed from the latter. We find, indeed, a mythological element, the absence of all moral purpose, and a national and local coloring, but, discernible among these, undoubted features of the primitive history.

The account of the Flood in the Koran is apparently drawn partly from Biblical and partly from Persian sources. In the main, no doubt, it follows the narrative in Genesis, but dwells at length on the testimony of Noah to the unbelieving (Sale’s Koran, chap. 11, p. 181). He is said to have tarried among his people one thousand save fifty years (chap. 29, p. 327). The people scoffed at and derided him, and thus were they employed until our sentence was put in execution and the oven poured forth water. Different explanations have been given of this oven, which may be seen in Sale’s note. He suggests (after Hyde, De Rel. Pers.) that this idea was borrowed from the Persian Magi, who also fancied that the first waters of the Deluge gushed out of the oven of a certain old woman named Zala Cufa. But the tanner (oven), he observes, may mean only a receptacle in which waters are gathered, or the fissure from which they broke forth. Another peculiarity of this version is, that Noah calls in vain to one of his sons to enter into the ark: he refuses, in the hope of escaping to a mountain, and is drowned before his father’s eyes. The ark, moreover, is said to have rested on the mountain Al Judi, which Sale supposes should be written Jordi or Giordi, and connects with the Gordysei, Cardu, etc. or Kurd Mountains on the borders of Armenia and Mesopotamia (ch. 11, p. 181-183, and notes). SEE ARARAT.

1. The traditions which come nearest to the Biblical account are those of the nations of Western Asia. Foremost among these is the Chaldean. It is preserved in a Fragment of Berosus, and is as follows: After the death of Ardates, his son Xisuthrus reigned eighteen sari. In his time happened a great Deluge, the history of which is thus described: The Deity Kronos appeared to him in a vision, and warned him that on the 15th day of the month Daesius there would be a flood by which mankind would be destroyed. He therefore enjoined him to write a history of the beginning, course, and end of all things, and to bury it in the City of the Sun at Sippara; and to build a vessel (), and to take with him into it his friends and relatives; and to put on board food and drink, together with different animals, birds, and quadrupeds; and as soon as he had made all arrangements, to commit himself to the deep. Having asked the Deity whither he was to sail, he was answered, To the gods, after having offered a prayer for the good of mankind.’ Whereupon. not being disobedient (to the heavenly vision), he built a vessel five stadia in length and two in breadth. Into this he put everything which he had prepared, and embarked in it his wife, his children, and his personal friends.

After the flood had been upon the earth and was in time abated, Xisuthrus sent out some birds from the vessel, which, not finding any food, nor any place where they could rest, returned thither.’ After an interval of some days Xisuthrus sent out the birds a second time, and now they returned to the ship with mud on their feet. A third time he repeated the experiment, and then they returned no more; whence Xisuthrus judged that the earth was visible above the waters, and accordingly he made an opening in the vessel (?), and, seeing that it was stranded upon the site of a certain mountain, he quitted it with his wife and daughter and the pilot. Having then paid his adoration to the earth, and having built an altar and offered sacrifices to the gods, he, together with those who had left the vessel with him, disappeared. Those who had remained behind, when they found that Xisuthrus and his companions did not return, in their turn left the vessel and began to look for him, calling him by his name. Him they saw no more, but a voice came to them from heaven, bidding them lead pious lives, and so join him who was gone to live with the gods, and further informing them that his wife, his daughter, and the pilot had shared the same honor. It told them, moreover, that they should return to Babylon, and how it was ordained that they should take up the writings that had been buried in Sippara and impart them to mankind, and that the country where they then were was the land of Armenia. The rest, having heard these words, offered sacrifices to the gods, and, taking a circuit, journeyed to Babylon. The vessel being thus stranded in Armenia, some part of it still remains in the mountains of the Corcyraeans (or Cordyeans, i.e. the Kurds or Kurdistan) in Armenia, and the people scrape off the bitumen from the vessel and make use of it by way of charms. Now, when those of whom we have spoken returned to Babylon, they dug up the writings which had been buried at Sippara; they also founded many cities and built temples, and thus the country of Babylon became inhabited again (Cory’s Ancient Fragments, p. 26-29). Another version abridged, but substantially the same, is given from Abydenus (Ibid. p. 33, 34). The version of Eupolemus (quoted by Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 10:9) is curious: The city of Balmylon, he says, owes its foundation to those who were saved from the Deluge; they were giants, and they built the tower celebrated in history.

Other Western Asiatic notices of a Flood may be found (a) in the Phoenician mythology, where the victory of Pontus (the sea) over Demarous (the earth) is mentioned (see the quotation from Sanchoniathon in Cory, as above, p. 13); (b) in the Sibylline Oracles, partly borrowed, no doubt, from the Biblical narrative, and partly perhaps from some Babylonian story. In these, mention is made of the Deluge, after which Kronos, Titan, and Japetus ruled the world, each taking a separate portion for himself, and remaining at peace till after the death of Noah, when Kronos and Titan engaged in war with one another (lb. p. 52). To these must be added (c) the Phrygian story of king Annakos or Nannakos (Enoch) in Iconium, who reached an age of more than 300 years, foretold the Flood, and wept and prayed for his people, seeing the destruction that was coming upon them. Very curious, as showing what deep root this tradition must have taken in the country, is the fact that so late as the time of Septimius Severus a medal was struck at Apamea on which the Flood is commemorated. The city is known to have been formerly called Kibotos,’ or the Ark;’ and it is also known that the coins of cities in that age exhibited some leading point in their mythological history. The medal in question represents a kind of square vessel floating in the water. Through an opening in it are seen two persons, a man and a woman. Upon the top of this chest or ark is perched a bird, whilst another flies towards it carrying a branch between its feet. Before the vessel are represented the same pair as having just quitted it, and got upon the dry land. Singularly enough, too, on some specimens of this medal, the letters , or , have been found on the vessel, as in the annexed cut. (See Eckhel, 3, 132, 133; Wiseman, Lectures on Science and Revealed Religion, 2:128, 129.) This fact is no doubt remarkable, but too much stress must not be laid upon it; for, making full allowance for the local tradition as having occasioned it, we must not forget the influence which the Biblical account would have in modifying the native story. SEE APAMEA.

As belonging to this cycle of tradition must be reckoned also

(1) the Syrian, related by Lucian (De Dea Syrd, c. 13), and connected with a huge chasm in the earth near Hieropolis, into which the waters of the Flood are supposed to have drained; and

(2) the Armenian, quoted by Josephus (Ant. 1:3) from Nicolaus Damlascenus, who flourished about the age of Augustus. He says: There is above Minyas, in the land of Armenia, a great mountain, which is called Baris [i.e. a ship], to which it is said that many persons fled at the time of the Deluge, and so were saved; and that one in particular was carried thither upon an ark ( ), and was landed upon its summit, and that the remains of the vessel’s planks and timbers were long preserved upon the mountain. Perhaps this was the same person of whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews, wrote an account.

2. A second cycle of traditions is that of Eastern Asia. To this belong the Persian, Indian, and Chinese. The Persian is mixed up with its cosmogony, and hence loses everything like a historical aspect. The world having been corrupted by Ahriman, it was necessary to bring over it a universal flood of water, that all impurity might be washed away. The rain came down in drops as large as the head of a bull; the earth was under water to the height of a man, and the creatures of Ahriman were destroyed.

The Chinese story is, in many respects, singularly like the Biblical according to the Jesuit M. Martinius, who says that the Chinese computed it to have taken place 4000 years before the Christian era. Fah-he, the reputed author of Chinese civilization, is said to have. escaped from the waters of the Deluge. He reappears as the first man at the production of a renovated’world, attended by seven companions-his wife, his three sons, and three daughters, by whose intermarriage the whole circle of the universe is finally completed (Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, 3, 16). Dr. Gutzlaff, in a paper On Buddhism in China, communicated to the Royal Asiatic Society (Journal, 16:79), says that he saw in one of the Buddhist temples, in beautiful stucco, the scene where Kwanyin, the Goddess of Mercy, looks down from heaven upon the lonely Noah in his ark, amidst the raging waves of the deluge, with the dolphins swimming around as his last means of safety, and the dove with an olive-branch in its beak flying towards the vessel. Nothing could have exceeded the beauty of the execution.

The Indian tradition appears in various forms. Of these, the one which most remarkably agrees with the Biblical account is that contained in the Mahabharata. We are there told that Brahma, having taken the form of a fish, appeared to the pious Manu (Satya, i.e. the righteous, as Noah is also called) on the banks of the river Wirini. Thence, at his request, Manu transferred him when he grew bigger to the Ganges, and finally, when he was too large even for the Ganges, to the ocean. Brahma now announces to Manu the approach of the Deluge, and bids him build a ship and put in it all kinds of seeds, together with the seven Rishis or holy beings. The Flood begins and covers the whole earth. Brahma himself appears in the form of a horned fish, and, the vessel being made fast to him, he draws it for many years, and finally lands on the loftiest summit of Mount Himarat (i.e. the Himalaya). Then, by the command of God, the ship is made fast, and in memory of the event the mountain called Naubandhana (i.e. ship-binding). By the favor of Brahma, Manu, after the Flood, creates the new race of mankind, which are hence termed Manudsha, i.e. born of Manu (Bopp, Die Siund. fluth). The Puranic or popular version is of much later date, and is, according to its own admission, colored and disguised by allegorical imagery. Another, and perhaps the most ancienversion of all, is that contained in the (patapatha-Brahmana. The peculiarity of this is that its locality is manifestly north of the Himalaya range, over which Manu is supposed to have crossed into India. Both -versions will be found at length in Hardwick’s Christ and other Masters, 2:145-152.

3. A third cycle of traditions is to be found among the American nations. These, as might be expected, show occasionally some marks of resemblance to the Asiatic legends. The one in existence among the Cherokees reminds us of the story in the Mahabharata, except that a dog here renders the same service to his master as the fish there does to Manu. This dog was very pertinacious in visiting the banks of a river for several days, where he stood gazing at the water and howling piteously. Being sharply spoken to by his master and ordered home, he revealed the coming evil. He concluded his prediction by saying that the escape of his master and family from drowning depended upon their throwing him into the water; that, to escape drowning himself, he must take a boat and put in it all he wished to save; that it would then rain hard a long time, and a great overflowing of the land would take place. By obeying this prediction the man and his family were saved, and from them the earth was again peopled (Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois, p. 358, 359).

Of the different nations that inhabit Mexico, says A. von Humboldt, the following had paintings resembling the deluge of Coxcox, viz. the Aztecs, the Mixtecs, the Zapotecs, the Tlascaltecs, and the Mechoacans. The Noah, Xisuthrus, or Manu of these nations is termed Coxcox, Teo- Cipactli, or Tezpi. He saved himself, with his wife Xochiquetzatl, in a bark, or, according to other traditions, on a raft. The painting represents Coxcox in the midst of the water waiting for a bark. The mountain, the summit of which rises above the waters, is the peak of Colhuacan, the Ararat of the Mexicans. At the foot of the mountain are the heads of Coxcox and his wife. The latter is known by two tresses in the form of horns, denoting the female sex. The men born after the Deluge were dumb: the dove from the top of a tree distributed among them tongues, represented under the form of small commas. Of the Mechoacan tradition he writes, that Coxcox, whom they called Tezpi, embarked in a spacious acalli with his wife, his children, several animals, and grain. When the Great Spirit ordered the waters to withdraw, Tezpi sent out from his bark a vulture, the zopilote, or vultur aura. This bird did not return on account of the carcasses with which the earth was strewed. Tezpi sent out other birds, one of which, the humming-bird, alone returned, holding in its beak a branch clad with leaves. Tezpi, seeing that fresh verdure covered the soil, quitted his bark near the mountain of Colhuacan (Vues des Cordilres et Monumens de l’Amerique, p. 226, 227). A peculiarity of many of these American Indian traditions must be noted, and that is, that the Flood, according to them, usually took place in the time of the First Man, who, together with his family, escape. But Mller (Americanischen Urreligionen) goes too far when he draws from this the conclusion that these traditions are consequently cosmogonic, and have no historical value. The fact seems rather to be that all memory of the age between the Creation and the Flood had perished, and that hence these two great events were brought into close juxtaposition. This is the less unlikely when we see how very meager even the Biblical history of that age is.

It may not be amiss here to mention the legend still preserved among the inhabitants of the Fiji Islands, although not belonging to this group. They say that after the islands had been peopled by the first man and woman, a great rain took place by which they were finally submerged; but, before the highest places were covered by the waters, two large double canoes made their appearance. In one of these was Rokora, the god of carpenters; in the other, Rokola, his head workman, who picked up some of the people, and kept them on board until the waters had subsided, after which they were again landed on the island. It is reported that in former times canoes were always kept in readiness against another inundation. The persons thus saved, eight in number, were landed at Mbenga, where the highest of their gods is said to have made his first appearance. By virtue of this tradition, the chiefs of Mbenga take rank before all others, and have always acted a conspicuous part among the Fijis. They style themselves Ngali-duv-a-ki- langi subject to Heaven alone (Wilkes, Exploring Expedition).

In the wild Scandinavian Edda the earth is allegorized as the great giant Ymir, whose bones and flesh are represented by the rocks and soil. This giant was killed by the gods, and his blood (the ocean) poured forth in such a flood that it drowned all the lesser giants-his offspring-except one, who saved himself and his wife by escaping in time to his ship.

4. Greece has two versions of a flood, one associated with Ogyges (Jul. Afric. as quoted by Euseb. Praep. Ev. 10:10), and the other, in a far more elaborate form, with Deucalion. Both, however, are of late origin they were unknown to Homer and Hesiod. Herodotus, though he mentions Deucalion as one of the first kings of the Hellenes, says not a word about the Flood (i. 56). Pindar is the first writer who mentions it (Olymp. 9:37 sq.). In Apollodorus (Biblio. 1:7) and Ovid (Metam. 1:260) the story appears in a much more definite shape. Finally, Lucian gives a narrative (De Dea Syr. c. 12, 13), not very different from that of Ovid, except that he makes provision for the safety of the animals, which Ovid does not. He attributes the necessity for the Deluge to the exceeding wickedness of the existing race of men, and declares that the earth opened and sent forth waters to swallow them up, as well as that heavy rain fell upon them. Deucalion, as the one righteous man, escaped with his wives and children, and the animals he had put into the chest (), and landed, after nine days and nine nights, on the top of Parnassus, while the chief part of Hellas was under water, and nearly all men perished, except a few who reached the tops of the highest mountains. Plutarch (de Sollert. Anim. 13) mentions the dove which Deucalion made use of to ascertain whether the flood was abated. Most of these accounts, it must be observed, localize the Flood, and confine it to Greece, or some part of Greece. Aristotle speaks of a local inundation near Dodona only (Meteorol. 1:14). It must also be confessed that the later the narrative the more definite the form it assumes, and the more nearly it resembles the Mosaic account. This old Greek legend of Deucalion and Pyrrha is the best known of all the traditions next to the narrative of the Bible. (See Jackson, Noah’s and Deucalion’s Flood, Works , 1:103; The Deluges of Ogyges and Deucalion, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1849, p. 75.) According to this version, mankind, for their impiety, were doomed to destruction. The waters accordingly broke from the earth, accompanied by violent rains from heaven. In a short time the world was whelmed in the floods, and every human being perished save Deucalion and his wife, with his sons and their wives. They escaped in a large vessel, in which they had previously placed pairs of every kind of animal. While in the ark Deucalion sent forth a dove, which in a little time returned. On being let free a second time it came not back, or, as another version has it, it alighted again on the ark with mud- stained claws, whence Deucalion inferred that the subsidence of the waters had begun. It may be mentioned, in reference to this tradition, as a very singular coincidence, that just as, according to Ovid, the earth was repeopled by Deucalion and Pyrrha throwing the bones of their mother (i.e. stones) behind their backs, so among the Tamanaki, a Carib tribe on the Orinoko, the story goes that a man and his wife, escaping from the flood to the top of the high mountain Tapanacu, threw over their heads the fruit of the Mauritia-palm, whence sprung a new race of men and women. This curious coincidence between Hellenic and American traditions seems explicable only on the hypothesis of some common center of tradition.

It seems tolerably certain that the Egyptians had no records of the Deluge, at least if we are to credit Manetho. Nor has any such record been detected on the monuments, or preserved in the mythology of Egypt. They knew, however, of the flood of Deucalion, but seem to have been in doubt whether it was to be regarded as partial or universal, and they supposed it to have been preceded by several others.

On all these and many similar traditions in civilized and savage nations, see the works of Bryant (Ancient Mythology, Lond. 1774 6, 3 vols. 4to, vol. in) and Harcourt (Doctrine of the Deluge, Lond. 1838, 2 vols. 8vo), in which, after rejecting what is fanciful, enough remains to attest the wide- spread existence and minute agreement of these traditionary recollections of a flood coextensive with the human race.

III. Extent of the Flood. On this question two opinions have been entertained: one, that it was general over the whole globe; the other, that it was partial, affecting only those regions over which the human race had extended. In all inquiries into this subject, it is well to bear in mind the design to be fulfilled by the flood of waters. That design was plainly not to destroy and remodel the surface of the earth. Although the inferior animals were involved in a like fate with the human race, it was not for their destruction that the great catastrophe came. The wickedness of man had evoked the divine anger; to sweep him and his crimes, therefore, from the face of the earth, the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened; hence we may reasonably infer that no greater devastation would be permitted than was unavoidable to secure the destruction of the human family. Against the first opinion there is, accordingly, this preliminary objection, that either it takes for granted that the whole world was peopled in the days of Noah, or it represents as involved in ruin large tracts of land, fair and fertile, though uninhabited by man. For the first alternative there is no evidence in Scripture.

Indeed, the whole narrative of the preparation of the ark, and Noah’s intercourse with his fellowmen, leads us to infer that the population of the globe at the time was not so extensive but that the warnings of the patriarch could be everywhere heard and known. It would have been a vain task if his single voice had been required to sound in all lands. The second alternative is equally adverse to the opinion of the universality of the deluge, for it necessitates our belief in the destruction of large portions of the earth’s surface where man had never been, and which could not, therefore, have become tainted and defiled by sin a view that is opposed to the known modes of God’s dealings with his creatures. But against the idea of a general flood over the whole globe simultaneously, many arguments of much greater force may be brought forward. These are derived from a consideration of the laws by which the present economy of nature is regulated. If it be objected to these arguments that the deluge was a miracle, and must, accordingly, be judged apart from the operation of law, it is sufficient to reply that, whether a miracle or not, it was brought about by the ordinary agencies of nature the fountains of the deep were broken up that is, the land was depressed and the sea rolled over it; the windows of heaven were opened in other words, a constant and heavy rain was sent upon the earth; and again, when the waters were to be dried off the land, a wind was made to blow upon them. In short, from the beginning to the end of the narrative in Genesis, we meet with no setting aside of the laws of nature. Everything is done in strict accordance with those laws, as if to teach a truth which is very apt to be forgotten in the present day, that what we call the laws of nature is only the constant mode in which the Creator acts, and that by the operation of these was, directed as he sees fit, he works out his purposes in creation.

1. The astronomical difficulties in the way of the theory of the absolute universality of the flood over the earth’s surface are insuperable. Granting, for an instant, that from some unknown source a vast body of water was introduced on the surface of our planet, we are led to ask what would be the result? It can be shown that there was no general collapse of the earth’s crust, and the water must therefore have risen five miles above the sea- level, so as to cover the top of the highest mountain. The effect of this would be to increase the equatorial diameter of the earth by some ten or twelve miles. The orbit round the sun would consequently be altered.. The influence of its attraction on the planets would be increased, and thus the element of disorder would reach to the remotest regions of space. But let us suppose that a change of this kind was permitted to extend through the universe, what is the next step in this series of impossible suppositions? After a period of less than a year the waters assuage, and the earth is once more as it used to be. Here, again, another change must have extended through the firmament. The old relations of the heavenly bodies are re- established, and-the orbits continue as they were before the flood. Thus we must suppose a serious alteration to have disturbed every celestial body throughout the whole universe, to have lasted while our earth performed some three hundred revolutions on its axis, and then to have ceased by the return of everything to the original condition. And this stupendous system of aberration had for its object the destruction of a race of creatures inhabiting a mere speck among the planetary systems! No one will pretend that this hypothesis has any shadow of probability.

2. The geological objections to a universal deluge are also formidable. Many years have not elapsed since it was believed that the revelations of geology tended in a very marked manner to confirm the commonly received view of the deluge. Over the greater part of Great Britain and Ireland, and throughout Central and Northern Europe as well as North America, there exists immediately under the vegetable soil a deposit of clay, sand, or gravel, often very tumultuously arranged. This deposit, in the infancy of geological science, was set down as the result of some great rush of waters; and, as it was plainly one of the most recent formations of the globe, it came to be regarded as beyond question the result of that old deluge by which the human race had been destroyed. It received, accordingly, the name diluvium; and, from its very general occurrence in both hemispheres, it was held to be a confirmation of the Bible narrative of the flood that covered all the high hills that were under the whole heaven. But the identification proved too hasty. A more careful examination of the diluvium showed that it belonged to many different periods, and had, to a considerable extent, resulted from local causes, acting over limited areas. It was ascertained, however, that one kind of diluvium, having a wide diffusion over the northern parts of Europe and America, must have been produced by one. great cause acting in the same geological period. The agency which gave rise to this drift was nevertheless shown to be not a rush of water, but ice coming from the north, either in the form of a glacier or as icebergs, and bearing with it enormous quantities of sand, mud, and stones. Thus the last hope of sustaining the doctrine of a universal deluge by an appeal to geological facts fell to the ground. Not only does geology afford no evidence in favor of such a doctrine, but it tends to support the opposite view. The notion of a simultaneous and universal desolation of the globe finds no countenance among those stony records in which the primeval history of our planet is graven as with a pen of iron in the rock forever. There are, indeed, many gaps in the chronicle, many passages that have been blotted out in whole or in part, and some pages that seem never to have been inscribed among rocks at all, but these are only local. What is wanting in one place is often made up in another; and, though even at the best the record is full of imperfections, the geologist can confidently affirm that its whole tenor goes to disprove any universal catastrophe, and to show that the extinction of successive races of plants and animals has been imperceptibly effected during immensely protracted periods of time.

Another geological argument has often been adduced as bearing strongly against a general deluge. In Auvergne, and other districts of Central France, there occurs a series of volcanoes which have not been in action within the historical period. From the association of the remains of long extinct animals among the products of these volcanoes, it has been inferred that the era of eruption must be assigned to a time long anterior to the appearance of man. Yet these volcanic cones are in many instances as perfect as when they were first thrown up. Travelers who have climbed their sides and descended into their craters bear testimony to the fact that they consist of dust and cinders still so loosely aggregated that the traveler sometimes sinks over the ankle in volcanic debris. Such light material has assuredly been exposed to the action of no large body of water, which would have swept it at once away, like Graham’s Island, which arose in the Mediterranean, July, 1831, to a height of 200 feet and a circumference of three miles, but in a few months was washed down to a mere shoal (Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1867, p. 465). Hence, since these volcanoes belong to a period earlier than that of man, the deluge cannot have extended over Central France.

Formerly, the existence of shells and corals at the top of high mountains was taken to be no less conclusive evidence the other way. They were constantly appealed to as a proof of the literal truth of the Scripture narrative. So troublesome and inconvenient a proof did it seem to Voltaire, that he attempted to account for the existence of fossil shells by arguing that either they were those of fresh-water lakes and rivers evaporated during dry seasons, or of land-snails developed in unusual abundance during wet ones; or that they were shells that had been dropped from the hats of pilgrims on their way from the Holy Land to their own homes; or, in the case of the ammonites, that they were petrified reptiles. It speaks ill for the state of science that such arguments could be advanced, on the one side for, and on the other against, the universality of the Deluge. This is the more extraordinary and the fact shows how very slowly, where prejudices stand in the way, the soundest reasoning will be listened to when we remember that so early as the year 1517 an Italian named Fracastoro had demonstrated the untenableness of the vulgar belief which associated these fossil remains with the Mosaic Deluge. That inundation, he observed, was too transient; it consisted principally of fluviatile waters; and, if it had transported shells to great distances, it must have strewed them over the surface, not buried them at vast depths in the interior of mountains…. But the clear and philosophical views of Fracastoro were disregarded, and the talent and argumentative powers of the learned were doomed for three centuries to be wasted in the discussion of these two simple and preliminary questions: first, whether fossil remains had ever belonged to living creatures; and, secondly, whether, if this be admitted, all the phenomena could not be explained by the deluge of Noah (Lyell, Principles of Geology, p., 20, 9th edit.). Even within the last thirty years geologists like Cuvier and Buckland (Reliquice Diluviance, Lond. 1823, 4to) have thought that the superficial deposits might be referred to the period of the Noachian Flood. Subsequent investigation, however, showed that if the received chronology were even approximately correct, this was out of the question, as these deposits must have taken place thousands of years before the time of Noah, and, indeed, before the creation of man. Hence the geologic diluvium is to be carefully distinguished from the historic. Although, singularly enough, the latest discoveries give some support to the opinion that man may have been in existence during the formation of the drift, yet even then that formation could not have resulted from a mere temporary submersion like that of the Mosaic Deluge, but must have been the effect of causes in operation for ages. So far, then, it is clear, there is no evidence now on the earth’s surface in favor of a universal deluge. SEE GEOLOGY.

3. But perhaps the most startling of all the difficulties in the way of the belief in a universal deluge are presented to us in the researches of the zoologist. From him we learn that, even taking the cubit by which the ark was measured to have been of the longest, the ark was totally inadequate to contain the animals even of a single continent. It would occupy too much space to enter here into the details of this part of the subject. We refer the reader to one of the lectures of Hugh Miller (Testimony of the Rocks, p. 267). Sir Walter Raleigh thought he had exhausted the capabilities of the ark when, after calculating the amount of space that would be occupied by the animals known to himself at the time, he concluded that all these two hundred and eighty beasts might be kept in one story or room of the ark, in their several cabins, their meat in the second, the birds and their provisions in the third, with space to spare for Noah and his family, and all their necessaries (History of the World, p. 57). Since Raleigh’s time, however, the known number of terrestrial animals has been enormously increased. Of mammalia alone there are now known between 1600 and 1700 species. To these must be added upwards of 6000 birds, 650 reptiles, and 550,000 insects, all of which would require room and a provision of food in the ark. It is needless to remark that no vessel ever fashioned by man could have accommodated a tithe of these inmates. SEE NOAHS ARK.

But over and above the impossibility of constructing a vessel large enough to contain all the species of terrestrial animals that inhabit the globe, it would have been equally impossible in the days of Noah, just as it would be utterly impossible in our own day, to collect all these creatures alive into one corner of the earth. No one needs to be informed that the animal tribes are not all represented in any one country; that certain races are confined to high latitudes, that others roam among the temperate zones, while others are found only between the tropics. Nor is it necessary to do more than allude to the fact that there is a similar grouping on all high land, altitude above the sea being thus representative of recession from the equator, so that the bald head of a lofty mountain may be white with the snows of an eternal winter, its shoulders clad with the spring-like vegetation of the temperate latitudes, while its feet lie rich in the glories of a tropical summer. But besides this arrangement, according to climate and temperature, there is a still further subdivision into provinces, and these again into generic and specific centers. Thus, while each zone of latitude has its peculiar facies of animal and vegetable life, it contains so many distinct and independent areas, in which the animals and plants are to a large extent generically or specifically different from those of contiguous areas. The evidence of these localized groups of organisms points in part to old geological changes of sea and land, and possibly to other causes which are still far from being understood. Professor Edward Forbes treated them as centers of creation, that is, distinct areas in which groups of plants and animals had been created, and from which, as a common center, they had gradually radiated, so as to encroach more or less upon the neighboring areas.

Hence, to collect specimens of all the species of terrestrial creatures inhabiting the earth, it would be necessary not only to visit each parallel of latitude on both sides of the equator, but to explore the whole extent of each parallel, so as to leave out none of the separate provinces. With all the appliances of modern civilization, and all the labors of explorers in the cause of science throughout every part of the world, the task of ascertaining the extent of the animal kingdom is probably still far from being accomplished. Not a year passes away without witnessing new names added to the lists of the zoologist. Surely no one will pretend that what has not yet been achieved by hundreds of laborers during many centuries could have been performed by one of the patriarchs during a few years. It was of course necessary that the animals should be brought alive. But this, owing to their climatal susceptibilities, was in the case of many species impossible, and even with regard to those which might have survived the journey, the difficulties of their transport must have been altogether insuperable. Noah, moreover, was busy with his great vessel, and continued to be a preacher of repentance to his fellow-men occupations which admitted of no pereginations to the ends of the earth in search of inmates for the ark. It is indeed beyond our power to follow up the train of impossibilities which such a notion implies. Dr. J. Pye Smith remarks that the idea of a collection of all the terrestrial animals of the globe brought by Noah to the ark cannot be entertained, without bringing up the idea of miracles more stupendous than any that are recorded in Scripture, even what appear appalling in comparison; the great decisive miracle of Christianity the resurrection of the Lord Jesus sinks down before it.

The existence of distinct provinces of plants and animals is a fact full of the deepest interest, and opens out many wide fields of inquiry. Its bearing on the question of the deluge is of course that phase which more especially requires to be noticed here. In addition to what has just been said, it may be remarker further, that these provinces have a geological as well as a zoological significance. Laying aside as utterly impossible the idea of the representation in the ark of every terrestrial species, we may obtain some confirmatory evidence that the existing races of plants and animals have never been interrupted by a general catastrophe. A careful study of these provinces shows that some are older than others, just as some parts of the earth’s surface are geologically older than other parts. In certain cases a province is found to contain within itself the relic of an older province which once occupied the same spot. In the profounder depths of the maritime lochs that indent the western coast of Scotland, there exist little groups of shell-fish which are not now found alive in the shallower parts. Yet they once lived even in the shallower water, and their remains are now found fossil along the shores of the Firth of Clyde and elsewhere.

They have become gradually extinct in the upper part of the sea, owing probably to a change of climate, and are now confined to the very deepest zones. These and other facts of the same kind point to slow and gradual changes unbroken by any great cataclysmal event. Among plants, too, similar phenomena abound. It should not be lost sight of, that, had the whole earth been covered for a year by a sheet of water, the greater part of our terrestrial plants must have perished. On the disappearance of the flood there would hence require to be a new creation, or rather re-creation, all over the world-a supposition for which there is no evidence either in Scripture or nature, and which is opposed to all that, we know of the method of the divine working. Plants are grouped, like animals, in greater and lesser provinces; and these, too, differ greatly from each other in antiquity. Some assemblages of plants have spread over wide districts, and either extirpated those which had previously occupied the ground or driven them into sheltered corners. In Great Britain and Ireland, for instance, there are five distinct groups of plants which have also corresponding suites of animals. The successive migrations of these groups can still be traced, leading us to a knowledge of certain vast changes which have taken place among the British islands within a comparatively recent geological period. England was still united to the Continent when the oldest group of plants began to flourish. The northern half of the island, with the whole of Scotland, was submerged beneath the sea, and again elevated before the great mass of the British plants crept westward across the plains that united the islands with the Continent. It was after the whole of our present groups of plants and animals had become fixed in their existing habitats that the isthmus was broken through by the waves and Britain became an island. These changes could not have been brought about save during, the lapse of a protracted series of ages. They give evidence of no sudden break, no temporary annihilation and subsequent creation, such as the idea of a general flood would require, but, on the contrary, show very clearly that the present races of plants and animals have gone on in unbroken succession from a time that long preceded the advent of man.

There is, however, other evidence conclusive against the hypothesis of a universal deluge, miracle apart. The first effect of the covering of the whole globe with water would be a complete change in its climate, the general tendency being to lower and equalize the temperature of all parts of its surface. Pari passu with this process . . would ensue the destruction of the great majority of marine animals. This would take place, partly by reason of the entire change in climatal conditions, too sudden and general to be escaped by migration; and, in still greater measure, in consequence of the sudden change in the depth of the water. Great multitudes of marine animals can only live between tide-marks, or at depths less than fifty fathoms; and as by the hypothesis the land had to be depressed many thousands of feet in a few months, and to be raised again with equal celerity, it follows that the animals could not possibly have accommodated themselves to such vast and rapid changes. All the littoral animals, therefore, would have been killed, The race of acorn-shells and periwinkles would have been exterminated, and all the coral-reefs of the Pacific would at once have been converted into dead coral, never to grow again. But, so far is this from being the case, that acorn-shells, periwinkles, and coral still survive, and there is good evidence that they have continued to exist and flourish for many thousands of years. On the other hand, Noah was not directed to take marine animals of any kind into the ark, nor, indeed, is it easy to see how they could have been pre. served. Again, had the whole globe been submerged, the sea-water covering the land would at once have destroyed every fresh-water fish, mollusk, and worm; and as none of these were taken into the ark, the several species would have become extinct. Nothing of the kind has occurred. Lastly, such experiments as have been made with regard to the action of sea-water upon terrestrial plants leave very little doubt that submergence in sea-water for ten or eleven months would have effectually destroyed not only the great majority of the plants, but their seeds as well. And yet it is not said that Noah took any stock of plants with him into the ark, or that the animals which issued from it had the slightest difficulty in obtaining pasture. There are, then, it must be confessed, very strong grounds for believing that no universal deluge ever occurred. Suppose the Flood, on the other hand, to have been local; suppose, for instance, the valley of the Euphrates to have been submerged; and then the necessity for preserving all the species of animals disappears. For, in the first place, there was nothing to prevent the birds and many of the large mammals from getting away; and, in the next, the number of species peculiar to that geographical area, and which would be absolutely destroyed by its being flooded, supposing they could not escape, is insignificant.

We are thus compelled to adopt the opinion that the flood of Noah was (like other deluges of which we read) a local event confined to one part of the earth’s surface, and that it was universal only inasmuch as it effected the destruction of the whole human race, the family of Noah alone excepted. Against this opinion no objections of any weight can be urged. It is borne out by the evidence to be derived from a study of the phenomena of nature; and it is not at variance with any statement in holy Scripture. The universality of the language in which Moses describes the extent of the Deluge all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered has indeed been regarded as a testimony to the universality of the catastrophe. But such general expressions are of frequent occurrence in the sacred writings to denote a tract of country which, though large relatively to its inhabitants, yet formed only a very small portion of the earth’s surface. No authentic traces of the action of the flood have yet been detected in the East, where the area of submersion was probably situated, not indeed is it likely that any such traces will ever be found. They might confirm our faith, but they are by no means necessary, for the fact of the former destruction of the human race is made known to us in the sacred volume, and has been handed down by tradition in almost every nation of the earth, even the most barbarous and the farthest removed from the early cradle of the human race. It is natural to suppose that the writer, when he speaks of all flesh, all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, refers only to his own locality. This sort of language is common enough in the Bible when only a small part of the globe is intended. Thus, for instance, it is said that all countries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy corn and that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. In these and many similar passages the expressions of the writer are obviously not to be taken in an exactly literal sense.

Even the apparently very distinct phrase all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered may be matched by another precisely similar, where it is said that God would put the fear and the dread of Israel upon every nation under heaven. It requires no effort to see that such language is framed with a kind of poetic breadth. The real difficulty lies in the connecting of this statement with the district in which Noah is supposed to have lived, and the assertion that the waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward. If the Ararat on which the ark rested be the present mountain of the same name, the highest peak of which is more than 17,000 feet above the sea, it would have been quite impossible for this to have been covered, the water reaching fifteen cubits, i.e. twenty-six feet above it, unless the whole earth were submerged. The author of the Genesis of the Earth, etc. has endeavored to escape this difficulty by shifting the scene of the catastrophe to the low country on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates (a miraculous overflow of these rivers being sufficient to account for the Deluge), and supposing that the fifteen cubits upward are to be reckoned, not from the top of the mountains, but from the surface of the plain.’ By the high hills he thinks may be meant only slight elevations, called high because they were the highest parts overflowed. But fifteen cubits is only a little more than twenty-six feet, and it seems absurd to suppose that such trifling elevations are described as all the high hills under the whole heaven. At this rate the ark itself must have been twice the height of the highest mountain.

The plain meaning of the narrative is that, far as the eye could sweep, not a solitary mountain reared its head above the waste of waters. On the other hand, there is no necessity for assuming that the ark stranded on the high peaks of the mountain now called Ararat, or even that that mountain was visible. A lower mountain range, such as the Zagros range for instance, may be intended. In the absence of all geographical certainty in the matter, it is better to adopt some such explanation of the difficulty. Indeed, it is out of the question to imagine that the ark rested on the top of a mountain which is covered for 4000 feet from the summit with perpetual snow, and the descent from which would have been a very serious matter both to men and other animals. The local tradition, according to which the fragments of the ark are still believed to remain on the summit, can weigh nothing when balanced against so extreme an improbability. Assuming, then, that the Ararat here mentioned is not the mountain of that name in Armenia, we may also assume the inundation to have been partial, and may suppose it to have extended over the whole valley of the Euphrates, and eastward as far as the range of mountains running down to the Persian Gulf, or further. As the inundation is said to have been caused by the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, as well as by the rain, some great and sudden subsidence of the land may have taken place, accompanied by an inrush of the waters of the Persian Gulf, similar to what occurred in the Runn of Cutch, on the eastern arm of the Indus, in 1819, when the sea flowed in, and in a few hours converted a tract of land 2000 square miles in area into an inland sea, or lagoon (see the account of this subsidence of the Delta of the indus in Lyell’s Principles of Geology, p. 460-63). Compare FLOOD.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Deluge

the name given to Noah’s flood, the history of which is recorded in Gen. 7 and 8.

It began in the year 2516 B.C., and continued twelve lunar months and ten days, or exactly one solar year.

The cause of this judgment was the corruption and violence that filled the earth in the ninth generation from Adam. God in righteous indignation determined to purge the earth of the ungodly race. Amid a world of crime and guilt there was one household that continued faithful and true to God, the household of Noah. “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations.”

At the command of God, Noah made an ark 300 cubits long, 50 broad, and 30 high. He slowly proceeded with this work during a period of one hundred and twenty years (Gen. 6:3). At length the purpose of God began to be carried into effect. The following table exhibits the order of events as they occurred:

In the six hundredth year of his life Noah is commanded by God to enter the ark, taking with him his wife, and his three sons with their wives (Gen. 7:1-10).

The rain begins on the seventeenth day of the second month (Gen. 7:11-17).

The rain ceases, the waters prevail, fifteen cubits upward (Gen. 7:18-24).

The ark grounds on one of the mountains of Ararat on the seventeenth day of the seventh month, or one hundred and fifty days after the Deluge began (Gen. 8:1-4).

Tops of the mountains visible on the first day of the tenth month (Gen. 8:5).

Raven and dove sent out forty days after this (Gen. 8:6-9).

Dove again sent out seven days afterwards; and in the evening she returns with an olive leaf in her mouth (Gen. 8:10, 11).

Dove sent out the third time after an interval of other seven days, and returns no more (Gen. 8:12).

The ground becomes dry on the first day of the first month of the new year (Gen. 8:13).

Noah leaves the ark on the twenty-seventh day of the second month (Gen. 8:14-19).

The historical truth of the narrative of the Flood is established by the references made to it by our Lord (Matt. 24:37; comp. Luke 17:26). Peter speaks of it also (1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5). In Isa. 54:9 the Flood is referred to as “the waters of Noah.” The Biblical narrative clearly shows that so far as the human race was concerned the Deluge was universal; that it swept away all men living except Noah and his family, who were preserved in the ark; and that the present human race is descended from those who were thus preserved.

Traditions of the Deluge are found among all the great divisions of the human family; and these traditions, taken as a whole, wonderfully agree with the Biblical narrative, and agree with it in such a way as to lead to the conclusion that the Biblical is the authentic narrative, of which all these traditions are more or less corrupted versions. The most remarkable of these traditions is that recorded on tablets prepared by order of Assur-bani-pal, the king of Assyria. These were, however, copies of older records which belonged to somewhere about B.C. 2000, and which formed part of the priestly library at Erech (q.v.), “the ineradicable remembrance of a real and terrible event.” (See NOAH; CHALDEA)

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Deluge

See NOAH.

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

Deluge

DELUGE

1. The Biblical story, Gen 6:5 to Gen 9:17 [Gen 6:1-4 is probably a separate tradition, unconnected with the Deluge (see Driver, Genesis, p. 82)]. The two narratives of J [Note: Jahwist.] and P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] have been combined; the verses are assigned by Driver as follows: J [Note: Jahwist.] Gen 6:5-8, Gen 7:1-5; Gen 7:7-10; Gen 7:12; Gen 7:16 b, Gen 7:17 b, Gen 7:22-23, Gen 8:2-3 a, Gen 8:6-13 b, Gen 8:20-22; P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] Gen 6:9-22, Gen 7:6; Gen 7:11; Gen 7:13-16 a, Gen 7:17 a, Gen 7:18-21; Gen 7:24, Gen 8:1-2 a, Gen 8:3-5, Gen 8:13 a, Gen 8:14-19, Gen 9:1-17. J [Note: Jahwist.] alone relates the sending out of the birds, and the sacrifice with which J [Note: Jahweh.] is so pleased that He determines never again to curse the ground. P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] alone gives the directions with regard to the size and construction of the ark, the blessing of Noah, the commands against murder and the eating of blood, and the covenant with the sign of the rainbow. In the portions in which the two narratives overlap, they are at variance in the following points. (a) In P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] one pair of every kind of animal (Gen 6:18-20) in J [Note: Jahwist.] one pair of the unclean and seven of the clean (Gen 7:2-3), are to be taken into the ark. (In Gen 7:9 a redactor has added the words two and two to make J [Note: Jahwist.] s representation conform to that of P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] .) The reason for the difference is that, according to P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] , animals were not eaten at all till after the Deluge (Gen 9:3), so that there was no distinction required between clean and unclean. (b) In P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] the cause of the Deluge is not only rain, but also the bursting forth of the subterranean abyss (Gen 6:11); J [Note: Jahwist.] mentions rain only (Gen 6:12). (c) In P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] the water begins to abate after 150 days (Gen 8:3), the mountain tops are visible after 8 months and 13 days (Gen 7:11, Gen 8:5), and the earth is dry after a year and 10 days (Gen 8:14); in J [Note: Jahwist.] the Flood lasts only 40 days (Gen 7:12, Gen 8:6), and the water had begun to abate before that.

2. The Historicity of the story.The modern study of geology and comparative mythology has made it impossible to see in the story of the Deluge the literal record of an historical event. (The fact that marine fossils are found on the tops of hills cannot be used as an argument, for (i.) the same argument could be usedand is actually used by native tribesto prove other flood-stories in various parts of the globe; and (ii.) though it proves that some spots which are now at the tops of hills were at one time submerged, that is not equivalent to asserting that a flood ever occurred which covered the whole planetapart from the extreme improbability that the submergence of mountains was within the period of mans existence.) The difficulties in the story as it stands are immense. (a) All the water in the world, together with all the vapour if reduced to water, would not cover the whole earth to the height of Mt. Ararat. And if it had, it is impossible to imagine how it could have dried up in a year and 10 days (not to speak of 40 days), or whither it could have flowed away. (b) If only a single family survived, it is impossible to account for the wide variety of races and languages. (c) The means of safety is not a ship, but simply a huge chest, which would instantly capsize in a storm. It is popularly assumed that it had a hull, shaped like that of a ship; but of this nothing is said in the Heb. narrative. (d) The collection by Noah of a pair of every kind of animal, bird, and creeping thing, which would include species peculiar to different countries from the arctic regions to the tropics, is inconceivable. And no less so the housing of them all in a single chest, the feeding and care of them by eight persons, the arrangements to prevent their devouring one another, and the provision of the widely diverse conditions of life necessary for creatures from different countries and climates. From every point of view it is clear that the story is legendary, and similar in character to the legends which are found in the folk-lore of all peoples.

3. The Cause of the Deluge.This is stated to be rain (Gen 7:11 b, Gen 7:12), and the bursting forth of the subterranean abyss. It must be studied in connexion with other flood-stories. Such stories are found principally in America, but also in India, Cashmir, Tibet, China, Kamschatka, Australia, some of the Polynesian Islands, Lithuania, and Greece. In the great majority of cases the flood is caused by some startling natural phenomenon, which often has a special connexion with the locality to which it belongs; e.g. the melting of the ice or snow, in the extreme N. of America; earthquakes, on the American coastlands where they frequently occur; the submergence or emergence of islands, in districts liable to volcanic eruptions; among inland peoples the cause is frequently the bursting of the banks of rivers which have been swollen by rains. Sometimes the stories have grown up to account for various facts of observation; e.g. the dispersion of peoples, and differences of language; the red colour, or the pale colour, of certain tribes; the discovery of marine fossils inland, and so on. In some cases these stories have been coloured by the Bible story, owing to the teaching of Christian missionaries in modern times, and often mixed up with other Bible stories, and reproduced with grotesque details by local adaptation. But there are very many which are quite unconnected with the story of Noah. (For a much fuller discussion of the various flood-stories see the valuable art. Flood in Hastings DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ii.) It is reasonable, therefore, to treat the Hebrew story as one of these old-world legends, and to look for the cause of it in the natural features of the land which gave it birth. And we are fortunate in the possession of an earlier form of the legend, which belongs to Babylonia, and makes it probable that its origin is to be ascribed to the inundation of the large Babylonian plain by the bursting forth of one of the rivers by which it is intersected, and perhaps also, as some think, to the incursion of a tidal wave due to an earthquake somewhere in the South. This, among a people whose world was bounded by very narrow limits, would easily be magnified in oral tradition into a universal Deluge.

4. The Babylonian story.(a) One form of the story has long been known from the fragments of Berosus, an Egyptian priest of the 3rd cent. b.c. It differs in certain details from the other form known to us; e.g. when the birds return the second time, clay is seen to be attaching to their legs (a point which finds parallels in some N. American flood-legends); and not only the hero of the story, Xisuthros, and his wife, but also his daughter and the pilot of the ship are carried away by the gods.

(b) The other and more important form is contained in Akkadian cuneiform tablets m the British Museum, first deciphered in 1872. It is part of an epic in 12 parts, each connected with a sign of the Zodiac; the Flood story is the 11th, and is connected with Aquarius, the water-bearer. Gilgamesh of Uruk (Erech, Gen 10:10), the hero of the epic, contrived to visit his ancestor Ut-napishtim, who had received the gift of immortality. The latter is in one passage called Adra-hasis, which being inverted as Hasis-adra appears in Greek as Xisuthros. He relates to Gilgamesh how, for his piety, he had been preserved from a great flood. When Bel and three other gods determined to destroy Shurippak, a city lying on the Euphrates, Ea warned him to build a ship. He built it 120 cubits in height and breadth, with six decks, divided into 7 storeys, each with 9 compartments; it had a mast, and was smeared with bitumen. He took on board all his possessions, the seed of life of every kind that I possessed, cattle and beasts of the field, his family, servants, and craftsmen. He entered the ship and shut the door. Then Ramman the storm-god thundered, and the spirits of heaven brought lightnings; the gods were terrified; they fled to heaven, and cowered in a heap like a dog in his kennel. On the 7th day the rain ceased, and all mankind were turned to clay. The ship grounded on Mt. Nisir, E. of the Tigris, where it remained 6 days. Then Ut-napishtim sent forth a dove, a swallow, and a raven, and the last did not return. He then sent the animals to the four winds, and offered sacrifice on an altar at the top of the mountain. The gods smelled the savour and gathered like flies. The great goddess Ishtar lighted up the rainbow. She reproached Bel for destroying all mankind instead of one city only. Bel, on the other hand, was angry at the escape of Ut-napishtim, and refused to come to the sacrifice. But he was pacified by Ea, and at length entered the ship, and made a covenant with Ut-napishtim, and translated him and his wife to the mouth of the rivers, and made them immortal.

The similarities to the Heb. story, and the differences from it, are alike obvious. It dates from at least b.c. 3000, and it would pass through a long course of oral repetition before it reached the Hebrew form. And herein is seen the religious value of the latter. The genius of the Hebrew race under Divine inspiration gradually stripped it of all its crude polytheism, and made it the vehicle of spiritual truth. It teaches the unity and omnipotence of J [Note: Jahweh.] ; His hatred of sin and His punishment of sinners; but at the same time His merciful kindness to them that obey Him, which is shown in rescuing them from destruction, and in entering into a covenant with them.

5. It is strange that, apart from Gen 9:28; Gen 10:1; Gen 10:32; Gen 11:10, there are only two allusions in the OT to the Flood, Isa 54:9 and Psa 29:10 (the latter uncertain; see commentaries). In the Apocr. [Note: Apocrypha, Apocryphal.] : 2Es 3:9 f., Wis 10:4, Sir 44:17 f. (Sir 40:10 in LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , but not in Heb.). In the NT: Mat 24:38 f., Luk 17:27, Heb 11:7, 1Pe 3:20, 2Pe 2:5.

A. H. MNeile.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Deluge

The narrative of a flood, given in the book of Genesis (Genesis 7-8), by which, according to the literal sense of the description, the whole world was overwhelmed and every terrestrial creature destroyed, with the exception of one human family and the representatives of each species of animal, supernaturally preserved in an ark, constructed by divine appointment for the purpose, need not here be followed in detail. The account furnished by the sacred historian is circumstantially distinct; and the whole is expressly ascribed to divine agency: but, in several of the lesser particulars, secondary causes, as rain, ‘the opening of the windows of Heaven’ (Gen 7:11), and the ‘breaking up of the fountains of the great deep,’ are mentioned, and again the effect of wind in drying up the waters (Gen 8:1). It is chiefly to be remarked that the whole event is represented as both commencing and terminating in the most gradual and quiet manner, without anything at all resembling the catastrophes and convulsions often pictured in vulgar imagination as accompanying it. When the waters subsided, so little was the surface of the earth changed that the vegetation continued uninjured; the olive-trees remained from which the dove brought its token.

We allude particularly to these circumstances in the narrative as being those which bear most upon the probable nature and extent of the event, which it is our main object in the present article to examine, according to the tenor of what little evidence can be collected on the subject, whether from the terms of the narrative or from other sources of information which may be opened to us by the researches of science.

Much, indeed, might be said on the subject in other points of view; and especially in a more properly theological sense, it may be dwelt upon as a part of the great series of divine interpositions and dispensations which the sacred history discloses. But our present object, as well as limits, will restrict us from enlarging on these topics; or, again, upon the various ideas which have prevailed on the subject apart from Scripture on the one hand, or science on the other. Thus, we need merely allude to the fact that in almost all nations, from the remotest periods, there have prevailed certain mythological narratives and legendary tales of similar catastrophes. Such narratives have formed a part of the rude belief of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Greeks, Scythians, and Celtic tribes. They have also been discovered among the Peruvians and Mexicans, and the South Sea Islanders. For details on these points we refer our readers to the work of Bryant (Ancient Mythology), and more especially to the treatise of the Rev. L.V. Harcourt on the Deluge, who appears to have collected everything of this kind bearing on the subject.

With reference to our present design the most material question is that of the existence of those traces which it might be supposed would be discovered of the action of such a deluge on the existing surface of the globe; and the consequent views which we must adopt according to the degree of accordance or discordance which such evidences may offer, as compared with the written narrative.

The evidence which geology may disclose and which can in any degree bear on our present subject must, from the nature of the case, be confined to indications of superficial action attributable to the agency of water, subsequent to the latest period of the regular geological formations, and, corresponding in character to a temporary inundation of a quiet and tranquil nature, of a depth sufficient to cover the highest mountains, and, lastly (as indeed this condition implies), extending over the whole globe; or, if these conditions should not be fulfilled, then, indications of at least something approaching to this, or with which the terms of the description may be fairly understood and interpreted to correspond.

The general result of the geological researches into this subject is briefly this: the traces of currents, and the like, which the surface of the earth does exhibit, and which might be ascribed to diluvial action of some kind, are certainly not the results of one universal simultaneous submergence, but of many distinct, local, aqueous forces, for the most part continued in action for long periods, and of a kind precisely analogous to such agency as is now at work. While, further, many parts of the existing surface show no traces of such operations; and the phenomena of the volcanic districts prove distinctly that during the enormous periods which have elapsed since the craters were active, no deluge could possibly have passed over them without removing all those lighter portions of their exuvi which have evidently remained wholly untouched since they were ejected.

Upon the whole it is thus apparent, that we have no evidence whatever of any great aqueous revolution at any comparatively recent period having affected the earth’s surface over any considerable tract: changes, doubtless, may have been produced on a small scale in isolated districts. The phenomena presented by caves containing bones, as at Kirkdale and other localities, are not of a kind forming any breach in the continuity of the analogies by which all the changes in the surface are more and more seen to have been carried on. But a recent simultaneous influx of water covering the globe, and ascending above the level of the mountains, must have left indisputable traces of its influence, which not only is not the case, but against which we have positive facts standing out. Apart from the testimonies of geology there are other sciences which must be interrogated on such a subject. These are, chiefly, terrestrial physics, to assign the possibility of a supply of water to stand all over the globe five miles in depth above the level of the ordinary seanatural history, to count the myriads of species of living creatures to be preserved and continued in the arkmechanics, to construct such a vesselwith some others not less necessary to the case. But we have no disposition to enter more minutely on such points: the reader will find them most clearly and candidly stated in Dr. Pye Smith’s Geology and Scripture, etc. p. 130, 2nd edit.

Let us now glance at the nature and possible solutions of the difficulty thus presented. We believe only two main solutions have been attempted. One is that proposed by Dr. Pye Smith (ib. p. 294), who expressly contends that there is no real contradiction between these facts and the description in the Mosaic record, when the latter is correctly interpreted. This more correct interpretation then refers, in the first instance, to the proper import of the Scripture terms commonly taken to imply the universality of the deluge. These the author shows, by a large comparison of similar passages, are only to be understood as expressing a great extent; often, indeed, the very same phrase is applied to a very limited region or country, as in Gen 41:56; Deu 2:25; Act 2:5, etc. Thus, so far as these expressions are concerned, the description may apply to a local deluge.

Next, the destruction of the whole existing human race does not by any means imply this universality, since, by ingenious considerations as to the multiplication of mankind at the alleged era of the deluge; the author has shown that they probably had not extended beyond a comparatively limited district of the East.

A local destruction of animal life would also allow of such a reduction of the numbers to be included in the ark, as might obviate objections on that score; and here again the Oriental idiom may save the necessity of the literal supposition of every actual species being included.

Again, certain peculiar difficulties connected with the resting of the ark on Mount Ararat are combated by supposing the name incorrectly applied to the mountain now so designated, and really to belong to one of much lower elevation.

Lastly, this author suggests considerations tending to fix the region which may have been the scene of the actual inundation described by Moses, in about that part of Western Asia where there is a large district now considerably depressed below the level of the sea: this might have been submerged by the joint action of rain, and an elevation of the bed of the Persian and Indian Seas. And, finally, he quotes the opinions of several approved divines in confirmation of such a view, especially as bearing upon all the essential religious instruction which the narrative is calculated to convey.

Other attempts have been made with more or less probability to assign particular localities as the scene of the Mosaic deluge, if understood to have been partial. Some diluvial beds posterior to the tertiary formations have been occasionally pointed out as offering some probability of such an origin. Thus, e.g. Mr. W.J. Hamilton, secretary to the Geological Society, in his Tour in Asia Minor (vol. II, p. 386), found in the plains of Armenia, especially in some localities near Khorassan and on the banks of the Arpachai or Araxes, a remarkable thin bed of marl containing shells of tertiary (qu. recent?) species: these he attributes to a local deluge occurring (as the position of the bed indicates) after the cessation of the volcanic action which has taken place in that district. He expressly adds that he regards this deluge as probably coincident with the Mosaic; understanding the latter in a restricted or partial sense, and imagining it explained by physical causes which might have followed the volcanic action.

The only other mode of viewing the subject is that which, accepting the letter of the Scriptural narrative, makes the deluge strictly universal; and allowing (as they must be allowed) all the difficulties, not to say contradictions, in a natural sense, involved in it, accounts for them all by supernatural agency. In fact, the terms of the narrative, strictly taken, may perhaps be understood throughout as representing the whole event, from beginning to end, as entirely of a miraculous nature. If so, it may be said, there is an end to all difficulties or question, since there are no limits to omnipotence; and one miracle is not greater than another. Thus, Mr. Lyell (Principles of Geol. iv. 219. 4th ed.), after ably recapitulating the main points of evidence, as far as physical causes are concerned, remarks, ‘If we believe the flood to have been a temporary suspension of the ordinary laws of the natural world, requiring a miraculous intervention of the divine power, then it is evident that the credibility of such an event cannot be enhanced by any series of inundations, however analogous, of which the geologist may imagine he has discovered the proofs. For my own part, I have always considered the flood, when its universality, in the strictest sense of the term, is insisted on as a preternatural event far beyond the reach of philosophical inquiry, whether as to the causes employed to produce it, or the effects most likely to result from it.’

In a word, if we suppose the flood to have been miraculously produced, and all the difficulties thus overcome, we must also suppose that it was not only miraculously terminated also, but every trace and mark of it supernaturally effaced and destroyed.

Now, considering the immense amount of supernatural agency thus rendered necessary, this hypothesis has appeared to some quite untenable. Dr. Pye Smith, in particular (whom no one will suspect of any leaning to skepticism), enlarges on the difficulty (p. 157, and note), and offers some excellent remarks on the general question of miracles (p. 84-89); and there can be no doubt that, however plausible may be the assertion that all miracles are alike, yet the idea of supernatural agency to so enormous an amount as in the present instance is, to many minds at least, very staggering, if not wholly inadmissible. In fact, in stretching the argument to such an extent, it must be borne in mind, that we may be trenching upon difficulties in another quarter, and not sufficiently regarding the force of the evidence on which any miracles are supported [MIRACLES].

In any point of view, it must be admitted that the subject involves difficulties of no inconsiderable amount; and if, after due consideration of the suggestions offered for their solution, we should still feel it necessary to retain a cautious suspense of judgment on the subject, it may be also borne in mind that such hesitation will not involve the dereliction of any material religious doctrine.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Deluge

See FLOOD.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Deluge

See Flood

Flood

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

Deluge

Deluge. See Noah.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

Deluge

signifies, in general, any great inundation; but more particularly that universal flood by which the whole inhabitants of this globe were destroyed, except Noah and his family. According to the most approved systems of chronology, this remarkable event happened in the year 1656 after the creation, or about 2348 before the Christian aera. Of so general a calamity, from which only a single family of all who lived then on the face of the earth was preserved, we might naturally expect to find some memorials in the traditionary records of Pagan history, as well as in the sacred volume, where its peculiar cause, and the circumstances which attended it, are so distinctly and so fully related. Its magnitude and singularity could scarcely fail to make an indelible impression on the minds of the survivors, which would be communicated from them to their children, and would not be easily effaced from the traditions even of their latest posterity. A deficiency in such traces of this awful event, though perhaps it might not serve entirely to invalidate our belief of its reality, would certainly tend considerably to weaken its claim to credibility; it being scarcely probable that the knowledge of it should be utterly lost to the rest of the world, and confined to the documents of the Jewish nation alone. What we might reasonably expect has, accordingly, been actually and completely realized. The evidence which has been brought from almost every quarter of the world to bear upon the reality of this event, is of the most conclusive and irresistible kind; and every investigation, whether etymological or historical, which has been made concerning Heathen rites and traditions, has constantly added to its force, no less than to its extent.

And here, it were injustice to the memory of ingenuity and erudition almost unexampled in modern times, were we not to mention the labours of Bryant, the learned analysist of ancient mythology, whose patience and profoundness of research have thrown such new and convincing light on this subject. Nor must we forget his ardent and successful disciple, Mr. Faber, who, in his Dissertation on the Mysteries of the Cabiri, has in travelling over similar ground with his illustrious master at once corrected some of his statements, and greatly strengthened his general conclusions. As the basis of their system, however, rests on a most extensive etymological examination of the names of the deities and other mythological personages worshipped and celebrated by the Heathen, compared with the varied traditions respecting their histories, and the nature of the rites and names of the places that were sacred to them, we cannot do more, in the present article, than shortly state the result of their investigations, referring for the particular details, to the highly original treatises already mentioned. According to them, the memory of the deluge was incorporated with almost every part of the Gentile mythology and worship; Noah, under a vast multitude of characters, being one of their first deities, to whom all the nations of the Heathen world looked up as their founder; and to some circumstance or other in whose history, and that of his sons and the first patriarchs, most, if not all, of their religious ceremonies may be considered as not indistinctly referring. Traces of these, neither vague nor obscure, they conceive to be found in the history and character, not only of Deucalion, but of Atlas, Cronus, or Saturn, Dionusos, Inachus, Janus, Minos, Zeus, and others among the Greeks; of Isis, Osiris, Sesostris, Oannes, Typhon, &c, among the Egyptians; of Dagon, Agruerus Sydyk, &c, among the Phenicians; of Astarte, Derceto, &c, among the Assyrians; of Buddha, Menu, Vishnu, &c, among the Hindus; of Fohi, and a deity represented as sitting upon the lotos in the midst of waters, among the Chinese; of Budo and Iakusi among the Japanese, &c. They discover allusions to the ark, in many of the ancient mysteries, and traditions with respect to the dove and the rainbow, by which several of these allegorical personages were attended, which are not easily explicable, unless they be supposed to relate to the history of the deluge. By the celebrated Ogdoas of the Egyptians, consisting of eight persons sailing together in the sacred baris or ark, they imagine the family of Noah, which was precisely eight in number, to have been designated; and in the rites of Adonis or Thammuz, in particular, they point out many circumstances which seem to possess a distinct reference to the events recorded in the sixth and seventh chapters of Genesis. With regard to this system, we shall only farther observe, that, after every reasonable deduction is made from it, which the exuberant indulgence of fancy occasionally exhibited by its authors appears to render necessary, it contains so much that is relevant and conclusive, that it induces the conviction that it has a solid foundation in truth and fact; it being scarcely possible to conceive, that a mere hypothesis could be supported by evidence so varied, so extensive, and in many particulars so demonstrative, as that which its framers have produced.

Beside, however, the allusions to the deluge in the mythology and religious ceremonies of the Heathen, to which we have thus concisely adverted, there is a variety of traditions concerning it still more direct and circumstantial, the coincidence of which, with the narrative of Moses, it will require no common degree of skeptical hardihood to deny. We are informed by one of the circumnavigators of the world, who visited the remote island of Otaheite, that some of the inhabitants being asked concerning their origin, answered, that their supreme God having, a long time ago, been angry, dragged the earth through the sea, when their island was broken off and preserved. In the island of Cuba, the people are said to believe that the world was once destroyed by water by three persons, evidently alluding to the three sons of Noah. It is even related, that they have a tradition among them, that an old man, knowing that the deluge was approaching, built a large ship, and went into it with a great number of animals; and that he sent out from the ship a crow, which did not immediately come back, staying to feed on the carcasses of dead animals, but afterward returned with a green branch in its mouth. The author who gives the above account likewise affirms that it was reported by the inhabitants of Castells del Oro, in Terra Firma, that during a universal deluge, one man, and his children, were the only persons who escaped, by means of a canoe, and that from them the world was afterward peopled. According to the Peruvians, in consequence of a general inundation, occasioned by violent and continued rains, a universal destruction of the human species took place, a few persons only excepted, who escaped into caves on the tops of the mountains, into which they had previously conveyed a stock of provisions, and a number of live animals, lest when the waters abated, the whole race should have become extinct. Others of them affirm, that only six persons were saved, by means of a float or raft, and that from them all the inhabitants of the country are descended. They farther believe, that this event took place before there were any incas or kings among them, and when the country was extremely populous. The Brazilians not only preserve the tradition of a deluge, but believe that the whole race of mankind perished in it, except one man and his sister; or, according to others, two brothers with their wives, who were preserved by climbing the highest trees on their loftiest mountains; and who afterward became the heads of two different nations. The memory of this event they are even said to celebrate in some of their religious anthems or songs. Acosta, in his history of the Indies, says, that the Mexicans speak of a deluge in their country, by which all men were drowned; and that it was afterward peopled by viracocha, who came out of the lake Titicaca; and, according to Herrera, the Machoachans, a people comparatively in the neighbourhood of Mexico, had a tradition, that a single family was formerly preserved in an ark amid a deluge of waters; and that along with them, a sufficient number of animals were saved to stock the new world. During the time that they were shut up in the ark, several ravens were sent out, one of which brought back the branch of a tree. Among the Iroquois it is reported that a certain spirit, called by them Otkon, was the creator of the world; and that another being, called Messou, repaired it after a deluge, which happened in consequence of Otkon’s dogs having one day while he was hunting with them lost themselves in a great lake, which, in consequence of this, overflowed its banks, and in a short time covered the whole earth.

Passing from the more remote western to the eastern continent, nearer to the region where Noah is generally supposed to have lived, we find the traditions respecting the deluge still more particular and minute. According to Josephus, there were a multitude of ancient authors who concurred in asserting that the world had once been destroyed by a flood; This deluge, says he, and the ark are mentioned by all who have written barbaric histories, one of whom is Berosus the Chaldean. Eusebius informs us, that Melo, a bitter enemy of the Jews, and whose testimony is on this account peculiarly valuable, takes notice of the person who was saved along with his sons from the flood, having been, after his preservation, driven away from Armenia, whence he retired to the mountainous parts of Syria. Abydenus, after giving an account of the deluge from which Xisuthrus, the Chaldean Noah, was saved, concludes with asserting, in exact concurrence with Berosus, that the ark first rested on the mountains of Armenia, and that its remains were used by the natives as a talisman; and Plutarch mentions the Noachic dove being sent out of the ark, and returning to it again, as an intimation to Deucalion that the storm had not yet ceased.

This, however, is by no means all; Sir W, Jones, speaking of one of the Chinese fables says, Although I cannot insist with confidence, that the rainbow mentioned in it alludes to the Mosaic narrative of the flood, nor build any solid argument on the divine person Niuva, of whose character, and even of whose sex the historians of China speak very doubtfully; I may nevertheless assure you, after full inquiry and consideration, that the Chinese believe the earth to have been wholly covered with water, which, in works of undisputed authenticity, they describe as flowing abundantly, then subsiding, and separating the higher from the lower age of mankind.

Still more coincident even than this with the Mosaic account, is the Grecian history of the deluge, as preserved by Lucian, a native of Samosata on the Euphrates; and its authority is the more incontrovertible, on account of his being an avowed derider of all religions. The antediluvians, according to him, had gradually become so hardened and profligate, as to be guilty of every species of injustice. They paid no regard to the obligation of oaths; were insolent, inhospitable, and unmerciful. For this reason they were visited with an awful calamity. Suddenly the earth poured forth a vast quantity of water, the rain descended in torrents, the rivers overflowed their banks, and the sea rose to a prodigious height, so that all things became water, and all men were destroyed except Deucalion. He alone, for the sake of his prudence and piety, was reserved to a second generation. In obedience to a divine nomination, he entered, with his sons and their wives, into a large ark, which they had built for their preservation; and immediately swine, and horses, and lions, and serpents, and all other animals which live on earth, came to him by pairs, and were admitted by him into the ark. There they became perfectly mild and innoxious, their natures being changed by the gods, who created such a friendship between them, that they all sailed peaceably together, so long as the waters prevailed over the surface of the globe.

Scarcely less remarkable is the Hindoo tradition. It is contained in the ancient poem of the Bhavagat; and forms the subject of the first Purana, entitled Matsya, or The Fish. The following is Sir William Jones’s abridgment of it; and the identity of the event which it describes, with that of the Hebrew historian, is too obvious to require any particular illustration: The demon Hayagriva, having purloined the Vedas from the custody of Brahma, while he was reposing at the close of the sixth Manwantara, the whole race of men became corrupt, except the seven Rishis, and Satyavrata, who then reigned in Dravira, a maritime region to the south of Carnata. This prince was performing his ablutions in the river Critimala, when Vishnu appeared to him in the shape of a small fish, and after several augmentations of bulk in different waters, was placed by Satyavrata in the ocean, where he thus addressed his amazed votary: In seven days all creatures who have offended me shall be destroyed by a deluge, but thou shalt be secured in a capacious vessel miraculously formed; take therefore all kinds of medicinal herbs, and esculent grain for food, and, together with the seven holy men, your respective wives, and pairs of all animals, enter the ark without fear: then shalt thou know God face to face, and all thy questions shall be answered.’ Saying this, he disappeared; and after seven days the ocean began to overflow the coasts, and the earth to be flooded by constant showers, when Satyavrata, meditating on the deity, saw a large vessel moving on the waters. He entered it, having in all respects conformed to the instructions of Vishnu; who in the form of a vast fish, suffered the vessel to be tied with a great sea serpent, as with a cable, to his measureless horn. When the deluge had ceased, Vishnu slew the demon, and recovered the Vedas, instructed Satyavrata in divine knowledge, and appointed him the seventh Menu, by the name of Vaivaswata.

When we thus meet with some traditions of a deluge in almost every country, though the persons saved from it are said, in those various accounts to have resided in different districts widely separated from each other, we are constrained to allow that such a general concurrence of belief could never have originated merely from accident. While the mind is in this situation, Scripture comes forward, and, presenting a narrative more simple, better connected, and bearing an infinitely greater resemblance to authentic history, than any of those mythological accounts which occur in the traditions of Paganism, immediately flashes the conviction upon the understanding, that this must be the true history of those remarkable facts which other nations have handed down to us, only through the medium of allegory and fable. By the evidence adduced in this article, indeed, the moral certainty of the Mosaic history of the flood appears to be established on a basis sufficiently firm to bid defiance to the cavils of skepticism. Let the ingenuity of unbelief first account satisfactorily for this universal agreement of the Pagan world; and she may then, with a greater degree of plausibility, impeach the truth of the Scriptural narrative of the deluge.

The fact, however, is not only preserved in the traditions of all nations, as we have already seen; but after all the philosophical arguments which were formerly urged against it, philosophy has at length acknowledged that the present surface of the earth must have been submerged under water. Not only, says Kirwan, in every region of Europe, but also of both the old and new continents, immense quantities of marine shells, either dispersed or collected, have been discovered. This and several other facts seem to prove, that at least a great part of the present earth was, before the last general convulsion to which it has been subjected, the bed of an ocean which, at that time, was withdrawn from it. Other facts seem also to prove with sufficient evidence, that this was not a gradual retirement of the waters which once covered the parts now inhabited by men; but a violent one, such as may be supposed from the brief but emphatic relation of Moses. The violent action of water has left its traces in various undisputed phenomena. Stratified mountains of various heights exist in different parts of Europe, and of both continents; in and between whose strata, various substances of marine, and some vegetables of terrestrial, origin, repose either in their natural state, or petrified. To overspread the plains of the arctic circle with the shells of Indian seas, and with the bodies of elephants and rhinoceri, surrounded by masses of submarine vegetation; to accumulate on a single spot, as at La Bolca, in promiscuous confusion, the marine productions of the four quarters of the globe; what conceivable instrument would be efficacious but the rush of mighty waters? These facts, about which there is no dispute, and which are acknowledged by the advocates of each of the prevailing geological theories, give a sufficient attestation to the deluge of Noah, in which the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and from which precisely such phenomena might be expected to follow. To this may be added, though less decisive in proof, yet certainly strong as presumptive evidence, that the very aspect of the earth’s surface exhibits interesting marks both of the violent action, and the rapid subsidence, of waters; as well as affords a most interesting instance of the divine goodness in converting what was ruin itself into utility and beauty. The great frame-work of the varied surface of the habitable earth was probably laid by a more powerful agency than that of water; either when on the third day the waters under the heavens were gathered into one place, and the crust of the primitive earth was broken down to receive them, so that the dry land might appear; or by those mighty convulsions which appear to have accompanied the general deluge; but the rounding, so to speak, of what was rugged, where the substance was yielding, and the graceful undulations of hill and dale which so frequently present themselves, were probably effected by the retiring waters. The flood has passed away; but the soils which it deposited remain; and the valleys through which its last streams were drawn off to the ocean, with many an eddy and sinuous course, still exist, exhibiting visible proofs of its agency, and impressed with forms so adapted to the benefit of man, and often so gratifying to the finest taste, that, when the flood turned, it may be said to have left a blessing behind it.

The objections once made to the fact of a general deluge have, indeed, been greatly weakened by the progress of philosophical knowledge; and may be regarded as nearly given up, like the former notion of the high antiquity of the race of men, founded on the Chinese and Egyptian chronologies and pretended histories. Philosophy has even at last found out that there is sufficient water in the ocean, if called forth, to overflow the highest mountains to the height given by Moses,a conclusion which it once stoutly denied. Keill formerly computed that twenty-eight oceans would be necessary for that purpose; but we are now informed that a farther progress in mathematical and physical knowledge has shown the different seas and oceans to contain, at least, forty-eight times more water than they were then supposed to do; and that the mere raising of the temperature of the whole body of the ocean to a degree no greater than marine animals live in, in the shallow seas between the tropics, would so expand it as more than to produce the height above the mountains stated in the Mosaic account. As to the deluge of Noah, therefore, infidelity has almost entirely lost the aid of philosophy in framing objections to the Scriptures.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary