In his 1880 book, Chaldean Account of Genesis, British Museum scholar George Smith published his translation of an inscription from an archaeological fragment. The inscription tells of an ancient ziggurat and says: “The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded”.

It this a good way to corroborate the account of the Tower of Babel? What are some other ways?

P.S. Is there any picture of this fragment online?

  • Whether he's a trust-worthy source isn't on-topic here. Whether his conclusions on that particular issue, however, may be on topic here. You're committing the same logical fallacy (but in reverse) that @Anyonymous attacks in his answer.
    – Flimzy
    Dec 22 '13 at 9:50
  • 3
    This question appears to be off-topic because it is about the reliability of a particular historian.
    – Flimzy
    Dec 22 '13 at 9:50
  • @Flimzy I do not think it's the same logical fallacy. The asker wants to know whether the historian is credible, so that he or she may use the historian for something. In that case, the asker's own logical fallacy would be "appeal to authority", because even historians are human and can make mistakes. Plus, in academia, it is best thought of as credible than incredible, as the latter can potentially ruin a person's career; on the other hand, the historian in question is already dead, and his research may be outdated.
    – Double U
    Dec 22 '13 at 15:46
  • @Anonymous: I suppose one could say that 'appeal to authority' is the reverse of 'ad hominem' :)
    – Flimzy
    Dec 22 '13 at 21:34
  • Does the question need to be reworded to include "by some definition of perspective (Catholic, protestant, etc.)" in order to be on-topic?
    – mojo
    Dec 23 '13 at 20:05