I have given some comparisons with the Biblical account and that of Berosus, and I have made similar comparisons in my work, "Assyrian Discoveries;" but I have myself to acknowledge that these comparisons are to a great extent superficial, a thorough comparison of the Biblical and Babylonian accounts of the Flood being only possible in conjunction with a critical examination both of the Chaldean and Biblical texts. Biblical criticism is, however, a subject on which I am not competent to pronounce an independent opinion, and the views of Biblical scholars on the matter are so widely at variance, and some of them so unmistakably coloured by prejudice, that I feel I could not take up any of the prevailing views without being a party to the controversy.
There is only one point which I think should not be avoided in this matter: it is the view of a large section of scholars that the Book of Genesis contains, in some form, matter taken from two principal independent sources; one is termed the Jehovistic narrative, the other the Elohistic. The authorship and dates of the original documents and the manner, date, and extent of their combination, are points which I shall not require to notice, and I must confess I do not think we are at present in a position to form a judgment upon them. I think all will admit a connection of some sort between the Biblical narrative and those of Berosus and the cuneiform texts, but between Chaldea and Palestine was a wide extent of country inhabited by different nations,
