Page images


The signs from the text published in A Hebrew Deluge Story, which Luckenbill, one of my former pupils, has declared were misread (see AJSL 39, 153), are placed at the top of each column, beneath which are given other examples of the same sign (if they occur), on which there is no question as to the reading. Although all experts know that the eye can see and the camera will reproduce wedges, when the light is thrown from a different angle, which in some instances are not clearly visible in a single photograph, nevertheless I have used the same photograph, but enlarged, which was previously published, so that, without a glass, anyone, including even

[graphic][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors]

those who have not studied cuneiform palæography, may judge for himself whether my readings are “misreadings,” and whether they "fade into thin air."

No. 1 is akh from it-ta-akh-da-ar, line 4, which Luckenbill declares is ', see No. 2

No. 2 is ’ from li-'-zu, line 10; but all the wedges are not visible in the photograph. This he has read shi, i. e., No. 3. Note the oblique instead of horizontal wedge.

No. 3 is shi for comparison with ', i. e., No. 2.
No. 4 is na of te-i-na, line 9, which he has read ta, for which see No. 5.


[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

No. 5 is ta for comparison with na, i. e., No. 4.
No. 6 is ți from li-sha-aq-ți-il, line 11, which he has read qi; see No. 7.
No. 7 is qi for comparison with ți, i. e., No. 6.
No. 8 is il from li-sha-aq-ți-il, line 11, which he has read ra; see No. 9.
No. 9 is ra for comparison with il, i. e., No. 8.
No. 10 is ib from ib-ba-ra, line 70, which he has read dib; see No. 11.
No. 11 is dib (lu), for comparison with ib., i. e., No. 10.

No. 12 is ti from ... -ti, line 10, which he says may “have the remnants of shi; but for which see No. 3.

No. 13 is khi-bi-ish, line 12, which is from the photograph published by Johns, Cuneiform Inscriptions, p. 11, because through an injury to the tablet the word is no longer preserved. In spite not only of this photograph but Scheil's clear copy (RT 20, 56), Luckenbill says, “it is evident the khibish of Professor Clay and others is a misreading of the remnants of shaplish; but see No. 14.

No. 14 is sha-ap-li-ish made up from other lines for comparison with khi-bi-ish, i. e., No. 13.

e The answer to his other strictures of my work will be found on pages 9655, 17437. 38, 382, 386 , 17845, 179, 18049, and 18352. An examination of all these facts, it is believed, is sufficient to convince anyone competent to weigh the evidence that his criticisms, presented in such an aggressive tone, with the exception of one or two things previously noted by others, are without foundation.

« PreviousContinue »