one of the versions (for there seem to have been several) of the
old Babylonian epos, extant in his time; and, if that is a
reasonable conclusion, why is it unreasonable to believe that
the two stories, which the Hebrew compiler has put together in
such an inartistic fashion, were ultimately derived from the
same source? I say ultimately, because it does not at all follow
that the two versions, possibly trimmed by the Jehovistic writer
on the one hand, and by the Elohistic on the other, to suit
Hebrew requirements, may not have been current among the
Israelites for ages. And they may have acquired great authority
before they were combined in the Pentateuch.

Looking at the convergence of all these lines of evidence to the
one conclusion--that the story of the Flood in Genesis is merely
a Bowdlerised version of one of the oldest pieces of purely
fictitious literature extant; that whether this is, or is not,
its origin, the events asserted in it to have taken place
assuredly never did take place; further, that, in point of fact,
the story, in the plain and logically necessary sense of its
words, has long since been given up by orthodox and conservative
commentators of the Established Church--I can but admire the
courage and clear foresight of the Anglican divine who tells us
that we must be prepared to choose between the trustworthiness
of scientific method and the trustworthiness of that which the
Church declares to be Divine authority. For, to my mind, this
declaration of war to the knife against secular science, even in
its most elementary form; this rejection, without a moment's
hesitation, of any and all evidence which conflicts with
theological dogma--is the only position which is logically
reconcilable with the axioms of orthodoxy. If the Gospels truly