The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-04-02
SMASH HILPRECHT'S TABLET
PROF. BIRTON DECE IRES NEW
FLOOD STORI ~ A FR.AI ID.


>ar' Dr. uaapI anal IDr. IlHS agree
WIIh Dr. slarISn's Characterization.
BAI1IMcRF. ADril J. The tablet which
Prof Herman V Hilpr.cht "f the depart
ment Of arChsology 20 the University 81
Ppnnsylvania nunOmCrd two weeks ago
that he had discovered and which n"
said upheld The Biblical story " IN"
d.lugr was denounced to-day NJ meet
ing 81 the American Oriental Soc,etY
az the Johns Hopkins University a. "A
fabrication and as an exploitation Of an
archaeological fraud for purely sensa-
tionaI purposss
The paper which was on The latest
AdCiit ion 10 the Babylonian Literature
~ the Delngs Story wnS presented ny
Prof George A RartOn 81 Bryn MawT
college He took up In detail the con
Ieniions of Prof Hilpr-cht and offered
evidence that they were fallacious In every
particular.
Instead ~ waiting for the meeting
10 the American Oriental Society" said
Dr. Barton Prof. Hilprecht chose TO
presen, his paper 20 feminine congrega-
ton ~ the elite ~ the Philadelphia fast
~, AT q meeting OF the Acorn club OF that
city. The announcement occasioned wide
spread newspaper comment aud the
discovery was hailed as a very important
one. supporting in every particular I'll"
pries'lv document 81 the Pentat-uoh.
To ,hoss who know Prof Hilprech'
an elaborate r-futation "f his theories
will bs unnecessary. Nevertheless !
hOpe io show that his statements about
/ the tablet are not onlv Incorr~c' ~ re-
CARDS Interpretation but absolutely wrong
~ REGARDS 'he alleged age 20 which he
attributes them and totally ot no Signih-
canc- from a biblical standpoint.
Dr Barton saids that the scholarship
which Prof Hilprecht manifested ia hi-
Z translation Of the teSt ~ his tablet was
hardly worthy nf FIRST year student IN
HebVs.w and that tho restorations which
he made IA filiing m hrokcu lines were
| purely coD ie,tuTal lamentations and that
/ the chances Of his Interpretations being
correct were about one la ono hundred
while occasionally his translation OF
a line ~ sound cOntlnuel DIR Barton.
-his drawing upon his Imagination IN
filing out the. broken lines was entirely
too free.
In the second place. DR.. Hilprecht
I claims that the tablet was written some
time betw e~n 2I17 and 1905 Il. G. ANY
student Of the Oriental languages could
! tell from even casual examination
that the dialect in which the tablet -
written belongs 10 "a wholly later ps'Fiod.
and that instead or the real date of the
tablet being that &c the time alleged ~
really bslongs several centuries later.
Thus even II the Interpretation has heen
correct the tablet in OG NO scientific value
since u belongs tn "A period several cen.
turtles after that on which ~ was alleged
20 throw historical light
In the third place, when Hllprech'
claims that this lJelongs Ia q pTiestlv docu-
ment his allegation n based upon mis-
translation 81 the BabylOnIan text, which
IN turn rests upon a misunderstanding
81 the Hebrew text and upon the pure
unbridled imaglnatiOn Of the translator.
EVsn 50. the anci~nt BabylOnians had
foods Of their own. and - IL il not even
probable that the alleged tablet could
refer 10 the story % the Biblical deluge.
AT the tiMe ~ the exploitation II this
wonderful discovery IN the public press
ana its acceptance hy an unsllspeCtlng
pubic Biblical scholars were eager Ia
see tho tablet and their desire was readily
RrIitifed bV Prof HilpFeCh,. who willingly
furnished comes both a the tablet and
the pamphlst which he based upon u To
all who desired. All who have examined
the tablet, I think. vill agree with me in
my contention that II ~ psire,v a fraud.
4 valid indictment of Il co'iia b- hased
, upon any one ~ the three counts which
have enumerated.
an animated discussIoH vas engaged IN
NV Prof Paul Hsupt - Johns Hopkins
University and 10y Prof Albert I CLAW
II Yale University. Both upheld IA
every ~ rtlculsg the arguments % Prof..
n rton and Rdded additional mRterInl 10
th. case which he had sought - max" out
agSins' Prof Hilpr~cht
1T ~ very aad occurrence. sad
! Pruf Haupt. and deplOre II very much.
Besides rejecting upon DIR Hilprccht
I am afraid that u will cast aslSer-lon
upon the fair name 70 the University Of
! Pennsylvania under whose authority the
pamphlet was published.
The matter cau 10 dropped now. as
M scholnr could seriously believe that
there is anything IN these ridiculous
contentipnz The. only question IN NV
mind and ons which cannot bc answered
IN The. shs@ncs IL DR. HilpTech'. ~ why
such extraordinary Efforts had bsrn ma De
90 give the tablet such n rrrnarkG bl. value
from = religious Io,nt Of view.
The. members " the Oriental society
seemed Ia enjoy the discussion ana ap-
pl-,Ise was frequent DR. Hlupt had
I prsvIu,iHlv considered the tablet and the
IVA mphle' in the ORIENTAL seminary winch
h. conducts weekly al the Johns Hopkins
University and had sought 10 show that
rhe position taken by DIR R1rton was
currs.ct.