Deucalion; and whether it was, or was not, suggested by the
familiar acquaintance of its originators with the effects of
unusually great overflows of the Tigris and Euphrates, it is
utterly devoid of historical truth.

That is, in my judgment, the necessary result of the application
of criticism, based upon assured physical knowledge to the story
of the Deluge. And it is satisfactory that the criticism which
is based, not upon literary and historical speculations, but
upon well-ascertained facts in the departments of literature and
history, tends to exactly the same conclusion.

For I find this much agreed upon by all Biblical scholars of
repute, that the story of the Deluge in Genesis is separable
into at least two sets of statements; and that, when the
statements thus separated are recombined in their proper order,
each set furnishes an account of the event, coherent and
complete within itself, but in some respects discordant with
that afforded by the other set. This fact, as I understand, is
not disputed. Whether one of these is the work of an Elohist,
and the other of a Jehovist narrator; whether the two have been
pieced together in this strange fashion because, in the
estimation of the compilers and editors of the Pentateuch, they
had equal and independent authority, or not; or whether there is
some other way of accounting for it--are questions the answers
to which do not affect the fact. If possible I avoid a
priori arguments. But still, I think it may be urged,
without imprudence, that a narrative having this structure is
hardly such as might be expected from a writer possessed of full
and infallibly accurate knowledge. Once more, it would seem that