New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-04-02
ATTACK HILPRECHT
SCIENTISTS SCOFF At
DELUGE TABLET.
81 Fraud. Erploiied Purely
for Sensational Purposes,
Says Professor Barton.
[By Telegraph TO The Tribune. ]

tBy Telegraph 20 The Tribune
Baltimore. April 1.-The tablet which
Professor Herman V. Hilprecht, of the
University of PENNSYLVANIA, announced
two weeks ago nc had discovered on an
expedition to Palestine, and which ne
asserted upheld the Biblical story Of
the deluge was denounced to-day at
meeting of the American Oriental So
ciety, at the Johns Hopkins University,
as a fabrication and as an exploitation
of an archaeological fraud for purely
sensational purposes.
'The ancient Babylonians had foods
of their own.'' said Professor Barton.
so it is not even probable that tins
alleged tablet could refer to the story
OF the Biblical deluge."
This declaration was made in a paper
on "One OF the Latest Additions to the
Bahylonian Literature of the Deluge
Story" presented by Professor George
A Barton. Of Bryr MaWT College. He
took up in detail the contentious of Pro-
fessor Hilprecht and asserted that they
were fallacious in every particular.
Instead of waiting for the meeting
of the American Oriental Society" said
DR.. Barton, Professor Hiiprecht chose
to present his paper to a feminine con-
gregatior OF the elite of the Philadel-
phia fashionable set at a meeting of the
Acorn Club of that city The announce
ment occasioned widespread newspaper
comment. and the discovery was hailed
as a very important one. supporting in
every particular the priestly document
os the Pentateuch. / hope to show that
Professor Hilprecht's statements about
the tablet are not only incorrect as re-
CARDS Interpretation. absolutely wrong
as regards the alleged age to which he
attributes them and totally Of no sig
nifcance from Biblical standpoint"
DR.. Barton said that the scholarship
which Professor Hi;precht manifested
in his translation of the text of his
tablet was hardly worthy of a first year
student in Hebrew" and that the restO-
rations which he made in the case of
filing in broken lines were purely con-
iectural emendations," so that the
chances of his interpretations being cor
rect we-s only about one in one hun
dred."
while occasionally his translation If
a line is sound continued DR.. Barton,
his drawirs upon his imagination in
filling oat the broken lines was entirely
too freH.
In the second place. Or. Hilprecht
claims that the tablet was written some
time between 2157 and 2015 3. c. Any
student OF the Oriental languages could
tell from even a casual examination that
the dialect in which the tablet is writ
ten belongs to wholly later period and
that instead of the real date Of the tab
let heirs that Of the time alleged. it
really belongs seFe-al centuries later.
Thus. even if the Interpretation had been
correct the tablet is Of no scientific
value. since II belongs to a period sew
eral centuries after that OF which il was
alleged to throw historical light.
IN the third place. when DR.. Hilprecht
claims tHat this belongs to a priestly
document his allegation is based on a
mistranslation OF the Babylonian text
which il TURN rests upon a misunder-
standing Of the Hebrew text and upon
the pure. urbriGled imagination of the
translator"
At the conclusion of Professor Barton's
paper an animated discussion was en-
gagged in by Professor Paul Haupt. of the
Johns Hopkins University, and Professor
Albert T. Clay of Vale University. Both
upheld in every particular the arguments
Of Professor Barton. and added addi
tional material to the case against Pro-