Paul Davidson wrote an exploration of source critical work on the flood story (or better stories) in Genesis<\/a> a while back, which I\u2019ve been meaning to share. In it he writes:<\/p>\n The flood story provides an ideal text for identifying the compositional history of Genesis because of how obvious many of its editorial seams are. Carr\u2019s model\u00a0\u2014 that the Priestly text, written to replace an earlier version, was instead combined with that earlier version \u2014 explains very well the text in its present form.<\/span><\/p>\n Conservatively oriented readers may prefer to read the text synchronically \u2014 as though it were written all at once by a single author, as Jewish and Christian traditions have typically claimed. However, this way of reading the text simply is not capable of explaining the text\u2019s many oddities and complexities. Models like Carr\u2019s have greater explanatory power, allowing us to make greater sense of Genesis through analogy with other texts we\u00a0know<\/i>\u00a0were based on multiple sources.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n As a New Testament scholar, I\u2019d be interested to hear from those who work primarily in Hebrew Bible what their sense is of challenges to source critical work of this sort, such as Joshua Berman\u2019s\u00a0Inconsistency in the Torah<\/em>.<\/a><\/p>\n Elsewhere around the blogosphere on the subject of the flood account(s) in Genesis (and elsewhere):<\/p>\n https:\/\/readingthebiblewithigen.home.blog\/2020\/05\/26\/interview-discussing-flood-mythologies-with-erica-monge-greer\/<\/p>\n\n