The Washington herald., 1910-04-02

Baltimore. April THE tablet which
Prof. Herman Y. Hilprecht, of the de-
partment OF archaeology Of the University
Of Pennsylvania, announced two weeks
ago that he had discovered in an expedi-
ton TO Palestine, and which he said up
held the Biblical story Of the deluge was
denounced to-day at a meeting Of the
American Oriental Society at the Johns
Hopkins University as a fabrication and
as an exploitation Of an archaeological
fraud for purely sensational purposes.
The paper, which was 'On the latest ad-
dition 10 the Babylonian literature Of the
deluge story" was presented by Prof.
George a. Barton. of Bryn Mawr College.
He took up in detail the contentious Of
Prof. HilprechL and showed that they
were fallacies in every particular.
Instead OF waiting for the meeting Of
the American Oriental Society" said DR..
Barton, Prof. Hilprecht chose to present
his paper 10 a feminine congregation OF
the elite Of the Philadelphia fast set at
a meeting Of the Acorn Club of that city.
The announcement occasloned widespread
newspaper comment. and the discovery
was hailed as very important one, sup
porting in every particular the priestly
document Of the Pentateuch.
Statements Are Wrong.
ITO those who know Prof. HHprecht an
elaborate refutatiOn or his theories will
be unnecessary. Nevertheless I hope TO
show that his statements about the tablet
are not only incorrect as regards inter
probation. but absolutely wrong as regards
the alleged age to which he attributes
them, and totally of no significance from
a Biblical standpoint"
Or. Barton said that the scholarship
which Prof. Hilpreeht manifested in his
translation Of the text of his tablet was
hardly worthy Of a first year student in
Hebrew, and that the restoradons. which
he made in the case of filling broken
lines, were purely conjecturaI amenda-
tions and that the chances Of his inter
pretatons being correct were only about
one in 100.
While occasionally his translation Of
a line is sound" continued Dr. Barton
"hIs drawing upon his Imagination in fill
ing out the broken lines was entirely
too free.
Belongs to Later Period.
In the second place, DR.. Hnprecht
claims that the tablet was written some
time between 2137 and zoos B. c. Any
student OF the Oriental languages could
tell from even casual examination that
the dialect IN which the tablet is written
belongs to a wholly later period. and
that instead OF the real date of the tab
let being that Of the time alleged. it
really belongs several centuries later
Thus. even if the Interpretation had been
correct, the tablet is of no scientific
value since it belongs to a period several
centuries after that on which 1t was al
legged 10 throw historical light.
IN the third place. in which DR. Hill
precht claims that this belongs to a
priestly document, his allegation is based
upon a mistranslatiOn of the BabylGnian
text which, in turn, rests upon a misun-
derstanding Of the Hebrew text and upon
the pure unbridled imagination of the
translator, Even so the ancient Baby
lonians had floods OF their own. and so
it is not even probable that the alleged
tablet could refer to the story OF the
Biblical deluge.
"At the time Of the exploitation OF
this wonderful discovery in the public
press and its acceptance by an unsus-
pecting public. Biblical scholars were
eager to see the tablet and their desire
was readily gratifed by Prof Hiprecht.
who willingly furnished copies both OF
the tablet and the pamphlet, which he
based upon it to all who desired. All
who have examined the tablet I think.
will agree with me in my contention that
it is purely q fraud. A valid Indictment
Of it could be based upon any one Of the
three counts which have enumerated" ."
Uphold DR.. Barton.
At the conclusion Of DR.. Barton's pa
per an animated discussion was engaged
in by Prof Paul Haupt. Of the Johns
Hopkins University, and by Prot. Albert
T. Clay, of Yale University. Both up
held in every particular the arguments
of Prof. Barton, and added additional
material 20 the case which had already
been made out, as they believed, against
Prof. Hilprecht
1T is a very sad occurrence" said
Prof Haupt and I deplore it very
much. Resides rejecting upon DIT Hill
precht. am afraid that 1t Will cast as
persion upon the fair name OF the Uni
versity Of Pennsylvania, under whose
authority the pamphlet was published.
THE matter can be dropped now, as
no scholar could seriously believe tha.
there is anything in these ridiculous con-
tentIons. The only question in my mind,
and one which cannot be answered in the
absence of DR.. HiIpreeht, is why such
extraordinary efforts had been made TO
give the tablet such remarkable value
from religious point Of view"