There are literally thousands of tablets still untranslated. Doubtless among them are many wondrous treasures, like this:
We’ve known since at least 1872 that the Great Flood detailed in Genesis is a descendant of earlier flood myths from Mesopotamia. And there may be some credibility to the occurrence of at least some serious floods then, based on the facts that Mesopotamia is a giant flood plain and that there is some archeological evidence for a big flood around 5000 BC. But what we didn’t know until now is that those earlier flood myths also incorporated a boat onto which species of wild animals were sequestered to save them—two by two! This clearly shows, as if we didn’t know it already, that the Genesis story of Noah and the Ark isn’t true, but was simply an embroidery of earlier flood stories. (It will be interesting to see how Biblical literalists like Ken Ham react to this finding.)
This has all come to light since the recent deciphering of a clay cuneiform tablet first shown to curators at the British Museum in 1985, but not surrendered by its owner for translation until 2009. Now the remarkable results are detailed in a book by Irving Finkel, Assyriologist and “assistant keeper” of ancient writings at the British Museum. Finkel’s book, The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood (released in the US on Jan 30, Kindle only; already available at Amazon UK in hardback, Kindle, and paperback—the last for a tad more than 8 pounds). Finkel’s article (see below) is very well written, so I suspect his book will be a good read.
First, here’s Finkel, who bears a remarkable resemblance to an aged Darwin with more hair. And here’s the “Ark tablet” that Finkel and the British Museum finally got hold of four years ago. It contains 600 cuneiform characters and is dated between 1900 and 1700 BC, which makes it roughly a millennium older than the book of Genesis. According to Finkel, Genesis was assembled between 597 and 538 BC during the Jewish exodus in Babylonia.
The remarkable story on this cellphone-sized tablet is detailed in two pieces in Sunday’s Telegraph: an interview with Finkel by science writer Tom Chivers: “Irving Finkel: reader of the lost Ark,“ and a piece written by Finkel himself, ”Noah’s Ark: The facts behind the flood.” There’s also a very positive review of Finkel’s book by James McConnachie in yesterday’s Sunday Times, but it’s not online. The two Telegraph pieces are must-reads.
Read the rest. Great stuff. With thanks to Lair Amaro for pointing it out. And you young guys and gals- get thee Akkadian, Babylonian, and of course Ugaritic!
Zwinglius Redivivus 
If, according to Finkel the old testament was written in 538, that would mean there was over 1,400 years between the two versions of the story. It seems very unlikely to me that a story could stay unchanged for that long of a period of time. Thus to me the more likely explanation is that the HB was written much earlier than most would like to believe.
LikeLike
An identical story would not survive 1400 years, but this say genesis was assembled c.538, and that makes a difference. Read 2012 book, GENESIS of GENESIS, the patriarch ages are calendar linked in 19 year cycle. They serve as backbone of the stories which match historic changes. The story of Noah was placed to fulfill that calendar purpose, and reflects story of Gilgamesh. Now we know the two by two element was also involved – which is logical. As GENESIS of GENESIS book shows, there are “seams” between story segments – they are mathematically locked. So we know the logic of the compiler of the book.
LikeLike
Jordan I have 2 problems with what you suggest
1) you say stories don’t survive unchanged for 1400 years, surely by this logic even if the Hebrew Bible was written in 538 it can’t be like we have now because that would mean the story hasn’t changed in 2500 years?
2) On the Atrahasis story with its flood versions we have various versions of it dating from various periods well over 1000 years, similarly we have the Gilgamesh epic from many places and many ages around the ancient world. Yes indeed the story doesn’t stay exactly the same and it would seem that the Gilgamesh story was prepared to cut the flood out of the creation account and put it onto a heroic epic, but the various narrative elements stay floating round – used in some and not in others (such as sending out birds in Glgamesh but perhaps not Atrahasis. The flood story from what we can tell was a very well known tale for a very long time.
LikeLike
Don’t believe anyone working in archeology would be dumb enough to handle such an artifact with bare hands. Least of all take a picture showing how dumb the are by doing so.
LikeLike
at digs i’ve never seen anyone wearing latex gloves when they pull solid artifacts out of the ground
LikeLike
That there are earlier versions are not dispositive either way. All these tales of Floods mean no more than that flood stories are important to Middle Eastern cultures. God (or god, take your pick) is angry and decides to start over like the artist of a graphic novel with a big eraser. ThE Eric Cline floods and the Noah myth say that people in the area (just semites or all?) have a cross generational need/wish/fear of drowning and yearn for a new social beginning, maybe even a new religion or two, or three. Or maybe I am totally wrong.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, as someone with a vested interest in the Flood story 10 years and still going strong on the PhD I find this rather over sensationalised. We know there were lots of versions of the flood story, lots of shapes for the ark, so I can’t see what is so sensational about finding another flood version – or why the literalists will be more put out by this than the existing tablets. Sadly, I can’t see it changing anything. True Atrahasis and Eridu are missing the bit where animals 2×2 might appear but can anyone tell me why that makes all the difference? As a scholar I’m interested to compare this to Eridu, Atrahasis and Gilgamesh but the hype all suggest no one knows the first 2 exist! I’ve had students come up to me saying wow doesn’t that change everything as if we were back in the days of George Smith.
LikeLike