05_Biblica_1_H_Collins_Layout 1 05/11/12 12:19 Pagina 404 404 C. JOHN COLLINS On the surface, the answer to my question is a straightforward “no” since the passages that mention Noah and the flood (Matt 24,37-39; Luke 17,26-27; Heb 11,7; 1 Pet 3,20; 2 Pet 2,5; 2 Pet 3,6) seem to limit themselves to the account in Genesis 3. However, the situation is not quite as simple as a surface obser- vation might suggest. In the study that follows, I will focus on Greek terms that do not appear in the LXX flood account, but which do ap- pear in accounts from other sources. Building on the kinds of criteria for detecting biblical echoes advocated by Richard Hays and Tim- othy Berkley, I am employing these criteria for detecting possible echoes from non-biblical sources 4. A word of methodological caution, however, is in order here. My study will attend to terminological divergences from the LXX telling of the flood story, but those divergences in themselves are not enough to establish that our author is echoing some other telling of that story. After all, an author may recount a familiar tale but use his own par- aphrase of the conventional terms, especially if he aims for literary achievement; he might also have access to an alternative translation of the Hebrew story, or even provide his own. And a New Testament author might be influenced by some other source from the Jewish world, where that Jewish source itself has either used paraphrase or an alternate translation. Hence I must base an argument of this kind, not simply on a word here and there, but on something that resembles a pattern of usage. Further, I will need to establish that an allusion to a non-biblical flood story is even worth considering, both from the perspective of the availability of such stories, and from the question of whether the alleged allusion actually clarifies the New Testament text. For the argument that Paul alludes to the Noah story in Rom 1,16-32, 3 see C.J. COLLINS, “Echoes of Aristotle in Romans 2:14-15: Or, maybe Abi- melech was not so bad after all”, Journal of Markets and Morality 13 (2010) 123-173, esp. 148-151. Similarly, for the argument that Gen 6,11-13 (LXX) of Rom 8,21, see C.J. COLLINS, Ge- helps to clarify the “corruption nesis 1‒4. A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ 2006) 182-184. O. CHRISTOFFERSSON, The Earnest Expectation of the Creature. The Flood-Tradition as Matrix of Romans 8:18-27 (ConBNT; Stockholm 1990) argues for the flood story as a major influence in Romans 8,18-27, but assessing this argument goes beyond the scope of this study. See the discussion in COLLINS, “Echoes of Aristotle in Romans 2:14- 4 15”, 126-129.