Every quotation in the article, verbatim, with the source, the locator, and the route by which both were verified. None was established by WebFetch. "iapdsearch" means bin/iapdsearch.py reading paragraphs from a print-disabled archive.org item; the leaf-to-page anchor is stated once per item.

Gilgamesh XI (eBL edition, George's translation; `ebl-2022`, read from the TSV)

14: "the great gods decided to cause the Deluge"
21-24: "Reed fence, reed fence! Brick wall, brick wall! Listen, O reed fence! Pay heed, O brick wall! O man of Šuruppak, son of Ubār-Tutu, demolish the house, build a boat!"
27: "Put on board the boat the seed of all living creatures!"
30-31: "her breadth and length should be the same, cover her with a roof, like the Apsû"
49: "the population began assembling at Atra-hasīs's gate"
58-59: "one 'acre' was her area, ten rods each her sides stood high, ten rods all round was the diameter of her roof"
61-63: "I gave her six decks, I divided her into seven parts, I divided her interior into nine."
66-67: "Three myriad measures of bitumen I poured into the furnace, three myriad of tar I tipped inside"
82-86: "whatever silver I had ... whatever gold I had ... All my kith and kin I sent aboard the boat, I sent aboard animals of the wild, creatures of the wild, persons of every skill and craft."
94: "I went into the boat and sealed my hatch."
114-116: "Even the gods took fright at the Deluge! They withdrew, they went up to the heaven of Anu. The gods curled up like dogs, lying out in the open."
120: "because I spoke evil in the assembly of the gods"
128-131: "For six days and (seven) nights, was blowing the wind, the Deluge, the gale laying flat the land. When the seventh day arrived, the gale relented, [the Deluge ended]."
135: "but all the people had turned to clay"
137: "I opened a vent, and sunlight fell on the side of my face."
142: "On Mount Nimuš the boat ran aground"
148-156: dove, swallow, raven; "Off went the raven and it saw the waters receding. So it could eat, scratch, peck (food), and did not come back to me."
157-159: "I brought out an offering and sacrificed to the four corners of the earth, I strewed incense on the peak of the mountain. Seven flasks and seven I set in position"
161-163: "The gods smelled the savour, the gods smelled the sweet savour, the gods gathered like flies round the sacrificer."
166-167: "O gods, let these be lapis lazuli (beads) around my neck, so that I remember these days and never forget them!"
175-176: "[From] where escaped (this) living creature? No man should survive the destruction!"
184: "how could you lack counsel and cause the deluge?"
197: "I let Atra-ḫasīs see a dream and so he heard the gods' secret."
203-205: "In the past Ūta-napišti was (one of) mankind, but now Ūta-napišti and his woman shall be like us gods! Ūta-napišti shall dwell far away, at the mouth of the rivers!"

ETCSL (downloaded HTML, tag-stripped)

The Flood story t.1.7.4, Segment A 10-14: "After An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursaĝa had fashioned the black-headed people, they also made animals multiply everywhere". Segment C: "In those days Zi-ud-sura the king, the gudug priest". Segment D 1-11: "All the windstorms and gales arose together, and the flood swept over the .... After the flood had swept over the land, and waves and windstorms had rocked the huge boat for seven days and seven nights, Utu the sun god came out ... The king sacrificed oxen and offered innumerable sheep." Segment E 3-11: "they granted him life like a god, they brought down to him eternal life ... they settled Zi-ud-sura the king in an overseas country, in the land Dilmun, where the sun rises."
Enki and Ninhursaĝa t.1.1.1, 11-16: "In Dilmun the raven was not yet cawing, the partridge not cackling. The lion did not slay, the wolf was not carrying off lambs". 20-26: "No eye-diseases said there: 'I am the eye disease.' No headache said there: 'I am the headache.' No old woman belonging to it said there: 'I am an old woman.' No old man belonging to it said there: 'I am an old man.'" 264-271: "'My brother, what part of you hurts you?' 'My ribs (ti) hurt me.' She gave birth to Ninti out of it."
Sumerian King List t.2.1.1 (library copy): "In Curuppag, Ubara-Tutu became king; he ruled for 18600 years. 1 king; he ruled for 18600 years. In 5 cities 8 kings".

Lambert and Millard, Atra-hasis (1969; library OCR, running-head pages)

pp. 5-6: "The main edition used here, since it is the most complete, was copied out in the reign of Ammi-saduqa, great-great-grandson of the famous Hammurabi, by Ku-Aya 'the junior scribe'." P. 6: "The one from Nippur is a piece about the flood. That from Ras Shamra on the Syrian coast dealt only with the flood, omitting all the earlier episodes."
p. 31: "Month Nisan, 21st day, the year when Ammi-saduqa, the king, a statue of himself . . ." P. 32: "Tablet I was thus written (or finished) on the 21st day of the first month of Ammi-saduqa's 12th year (c. 1635 B.C.), and Tablet II on the 28th day of the eleventh month of the preceding year." (OCR "Tablet Hon" read as "Tablet II on.")
p. 99, III v 34-35: "[The gods sniffed] the smell, / They gathered [like flies] over the offering." (Between running heads "98 ATRA-HASIS" and "100 ATRA-HASIS.")
p. 138 (Civil): "preserved in CBS 10673, the bottom third, approximately, of the complete tablet, apparently from Nippur"; "So far no duplicates of CBS 10673 have turned up"; "In the absence of a colophon, a tablet can be dated only by palaeographic, orthographic, linguistic, and other internal criteria"; "In any case CBS 10673 is not earlier than Late Old Babylonian."
pp. 9-11: "multiplied and their noise became such that Enlil ... lost his sleep" (paraphrased in the article; the OCR reads "multiplied and their noise became such that Enlil—still on the earth—").

Lambert 2013, Babylonian Creation Myths (third-party OCR, verification only, deleted after use)

p. 3: "there is no reason to suspect that any one is more than a few generations older than Ashurbanipal." (Before the running head "4 Babylonian Creation Myths.")
p. 9: "Competent scholars have expressed opinions ranging from 1700 to 750 B.C. Even if our date of c. 1100 B.C. is accepted, it is not a very helpful conclusion in this connection". (Between "Introduction: The Text of Enūma Eliš 9" and "10 Babylonian Creation Myths.")
p. 51, I 1-5: "When the heavens above did not exist, / And earth beneath had not come into being— / There was Apsû, the first in order, their begetter, / And demiurge Tiamat, who gave birth to them all; / They had mingled their waters together". (Before "52 Babylonian Creation Myths.")
p. 95, IV 137-140: "He split her into two like a dried fish: / One half of her he set up and stretched out as the heavens. / He stretched the skin and appointed a watch / With the instruction not to let her waters escape." (Between "94 Babylonian Creation Myths" and "96".)
p. 248: "Since the purpose of the Epic was to show that Marduk had replaced Enlil as head of the pantheon ... there is no dispute about the basic facts: that the god, his city Babylon, and its cult were utterly unimportant in Sumerian times ... The outstanding problem is to know when this elevation of Marduk took place. If this question can be answered, it will provide us with a terminus a quo for the Epic's date of composition." (Before the running head "248".)

Heidel 1951 (ISAC free PDF; OCR running heads "OLD TESTAMENT PARALLELS N" / "N THE BABYLONIAN GENESIS")

p. 46, VI 5-6: "Blood will I form and cause bone to be; / Then will I set up lullu, 'Man' shall be his name!"
p. 82: "both refer to a watery chaos, which was separated into heaven and earth; in both we have an etymological equivalence in the names denoting this chaos; both refer to the existence of light before the creation of the luminous bodies; both agree as to the succession in which the points of contact follow upon one another; and in both cases the number seven figures rather prominently."
p. 100: "But to derive tehôm from Ti'âmat is grammatically impossible, because the former has a masculine, the latter a feminine, ending." "The only way in which we can account for the above-mentioned morphological differences between Ti'âmat and tehôm is by assuming that both words go back to a common Semitic form." (Page begins at "100 THE BABYLONIAN GENESIS".)
p. 128: "But that is lacking all evidence." "In the Genesis account acts of creation were performed on all of the first six days, and on the seventh day God rested; while in Enûma elish Tablets II, III, and most of I and IV do not deal with any part of creation, and the story of Marduk's rest begins as early as the first half of Tablet VI and then extends over virtually all of Tablet VII."
p. 130: "The first explanation is not very likely, for the Babylonian version antedates the Hebrew account ... since priority of publication does not imply priority of existence, this argument must be used with a certain amount of caution. The Hebrew story may have been current in some form or other many centuries before it assumed its present form."
pp. 138-139: "Considering all this, I personally fail to see why it should be incompatible with the doctrine of inspiration to assume that Gen. 1:1—2:3 might in a measure be dependent on Enûma elish. But I reject the idea that the biblical account gradually [139] evolved out of the Babylonian; for that the differences are far too great and the similarities far too insignificant. In the light of the differences, the resemblances fade away almost like the stars before the sun."
p. 139: "In my estimation, no incontrovertible evidence can for the present be produced for either side; I believe that the whole question must still be left open."

Lambert 1965, JTS 16 (Hess-Tsumura reprint via iapdsearch on `istudiedinscript0004unse`; JTS pages in brackets in the reprint; reprint page = leaf minus 20)

p. 288: "By the turn of the century the idea of dependence on a Babylonian original in the two cases of creation and flood was an accepted opinion in critical circles"; "This amounts to saying that even though the case for the creation narrative is dubious, the better case of the flood can be used to prove it, a very debatable procedure."
p. 290: "The recovery of the Ugaritic texts has shown that the allusions to Yahweh's battle with Leviathan and the tannin, but not Rahab, are derived from Canaanite Baal myths, and these show no signs of dependence on Mesopotamian sources. Accordingly, one of the main supports for assuming the dependence of Genesis on Babylonian myths has gone".
p. 291: "The first major conclusion is that the Epic of Creation is not a norm of Babylonian or Sumerian cosmology. It is a sectarian and aberrant combination of mythological threads woven into an unparalleled compositum." "The flood remains the clearest case of dependence of Genesis on Mesopotamian legend. While flood stories as such do not have to be connected, the episode of the birds in Gen 8:6-12 is so close to the parallel passage in the XIth tablet of the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic that no doubt exists."
p. 292: "That edition of the Gilgamesh Epic which contains the flood story is the latest; no copies earlier than 750 B.C. are known, though it was a traditional text, and the late form may well have been put in shape between 1200 and 1000 B.C. Parts of earlier editions survive, for its origins go back, at least in Sumerian, to the third millennium, but none of them is known to have contained any flood narrative ... The Sumerian prototype, of which one incomplete copy of about 1800 B.C. alone survives, is very concise and its account of the flood has no mention of birds. The first Babylonian edition known, from copies of about 1600 B.C., is incomplete, but so far there is nothing about birds ... Thus the only surviving testimony to the most telling parallel happens to be later than the Biblical account, but nevertheless I hold that there is certain dependence of the Hebrew writers on a Mesopotamian tradition." "There seem, then, to be only two ways of escape from acknowledging Hebrew borrowing. The one is to assert that both Sumerians and Amorites held independent flood traditions, and from the latter the episode of the birds passed to both Hebrews and Babylonians. I can think of no refutation of such a view, [clause in quarantine]. Alternatively it could be argued that the Hebrew and Babylonian accounts go back to the event rather than to a common source of tradition. This is unacceptable to me for reasons to be explained later."
p. 296: "may be only the result of conflation of no particular antiquity ... Enūma Eliš is the first testimony to it." "To sum up discussion of the second day, there is one close parallel between Genesis and Enūma Eliš, but no evidence of Hebrew borrowing from Babylon."
pp. 296-297: "the Hebrew term šabbāt, meaning the completion of the week, and the Babylonian term šapattu, meaning the completion of the moon's waxing, that is the fifteenth day of a lunar month, are the same word. But since there is no genuine Sumerian equivalent of, nor Babylonian etymology for, šapattu, and it first appears only about 1700 B.C., I believe that Hebrews and Babylonians depend on a similar Amorite source."
p. 299: "The differences are indeed so great that direct borrowing of a literary form of Mesopotamian traditions is out of the question." P. 299 note: "ti 'rib' and the fashioning of Eve ('Life') from the rib of Adam. In this he was anticipated by V. Scheil".
pp. 299-300: "Megiddo has given up a piece of the Gilgamesh Epic". P. 300: "Earlier borrowing of the material is ruled out, in the present writer's opinion, because Genesis shows no knowledge of Mesopotamian matters prior to 1500 B.C., a point of considerable importance ... Up to the sudden and unexpected rise of Babylon under Hammurabi (c. 1750 B.C.) it was an utterly unimportant and obscure place ... The very existence of the Sumerians is nowhere hinted at. While the borrowing may have been something altogether more involved and complex than we have suggested, all the known facts favour the idea that the traditions moved westwards during the Amarna period and reached the Hebrews in oral form."

Jacobsen 1981, JBL 100 (same reprint, leaves 149-162; JBL pages in brackets)

p. 513: "It is written in Sumerian and probably took form late, perhaps around 1600 B.C. ... it prefigures so to speak, the biblical Genesis in its structure."
pp. 527-528: "Both traditions are tripartite and have in order first the creation of man and animals, second lists of leading figures after creation, in Mesopotamia city-rulers with their reigns, in the Bible, patriarchs with the years they lived, and then the flood. These three parts, moreover, are in both traditions combined simply by arranging them along a line in time".
p. 528: "The assignment of the tale to a mytho-historical genre is thus further confirmed." "the P-source, generally dated to ca. 500 B.C., and if, as seems likely, P is here influenced by Mesopotamian writings".
p. 529: "The Mesopotamian materials will have served as models rather than having been directly borrowed from."

Wenham 1978, VT 28 (same reprint, leaves 456-467)

pp. 346-347, the table (leaf 466): "1. Divine decision to destroy mankind ... 2. Warning to flood hero ... 3. Command to build ark ... 4. Hero's obedience ... 5. Command to enter ... 6. Entry ... 7. Closing door ... 8. Description of flood ... 9. Destruction of life ... 10. End of rain, etc. ... [347] 11. Ark grounding on mountain ... 12. Hero opens window ... 13. Birds' reconnaissance ... 14. Exit ... 15. Sacrifice ... 16. Divine smelling of sacrifice ... 17. Blessing on flood hero".
p. 347: "Whereas the combined account in Genesis 6-9 has seventeen points in common with the Epic of Gilgamesh version, J by itself has twelve points in common with Gilgamesh, and P by itself only ten."

Speiser 1964, Anchor Bible Genesis (iapdsearch on `genesis00spei`; page = leaf minus 80, anchored at leaves 107, 134, 135)

p. 9 (leaf 89): "the order of events is the same, which is enough to preclude any likelihood of coincidence."
p. 10 (leaf 90): "It may be safely posited, moreover, that the Babylonians did not take over these views from the Hebrews, since the cuneiform accounts — among which Enuma elis is but one, and a relatively stereotyped, formulation — antedate in substance the biblical statements on the subject. Nor is there the slightest basis in fact for assuming some unidentified ultimate source from which both the Mesopotamians and the Hebrews could have derived their views about creation. It would thus appear that P's opening account goes back to Babylonian prototypes".
p. 11 (leaf 91): "Thus the two are both genetically related and yet poles apart."
p. 27 (leaf 107): "the center of dissemination is Mesopotamia, which provides us this time with at least two suggestive analogues: the tale of Adapa (ANET, pp. 101 ff.) and, once more, the Epic of Gilgamesh with its central emphasis on man's quest for immortality."
p. 52 (leaf 132): "pitch. The same substance and the cognate term for it are found in the corresponding cuneiform passage."
p. 55 (leaf 135): "So much correspondence in over-all content is inescapable proof of basic interrelationship." "the order of the test flights (raven-swallow-dove in Gilg.)". "It is thus clear that Hebrew tradition must have received its material from some intermediate, and evidently northwesterly, source, and that it proceeded to adjust the data to its own needs and concepts."

George 2003 (library OCR, running heads)

pp. 17-18: "the existence of contemporaneous library tablets inscribed with portions of the poem means that Gilgameš in Akkadian was already established in the written tradition."
p. 25: "There is still no sign of the incorporation in any version of an account of the great Flood."
p. 26: "(b) Local Akkadian paraphrases: MB Boğ2 (thirteenth-century copy), MB Megiddo (fifteenth- or fourteenth-century copy?)".
p. 70: "Because the Flood episode in Gen. 6-8 matches the older Babylonian myth so well in plot and, particularly, in details, few doubt that Noah's story is descended from a Mesopotamian account."
pp. 339-340: "was found by a shepherd in 1954 near the dump of the Chicago expedition to Megiddo"; "The piece was first published in 1959 by A. Goetze and S. Levy. It preserves fragments of text similar to parts of SB Tablet VII."
p. 512: "The configuration of this strange boat was obviously not drawn from practical experience."
pp. 516-517: "one of those details held in common that proved the shared origin of the tales of Uta-napišti and Noah"; "based as it was on a theory of bird behaviour extrapolated from the biblical account and thence applied unaltered to the cuneiform tradition, is methodologically suspect"; "borrowed a Hebrew topos"; "he overlooks evidence for sailors in different parts of the world releasing doves with exactly the last aim"; "I find it more to the point that it is in the nature of doves to return but of ravens to fly away"; "The order of the birds in Genesis obscures such an explanation"; "I reject his argument that the Babylonian account is derivative of the Hebrew."

Kitchen 2003 (library OCR, pp. 422-426)

p. 423: "All these Mesopotamian sources belong to the second millennium, and specifically were composed during its first half (ca. 2000-1600). In succeeding ages these texts (or some of them) continued to be recopied down to the seventh century B.C."; "Significantly, no further literary works of this kind seem to have been composed in Mesopotamia after circa 1600."
p. 424: "Enuma Elish and Gen. 1-2 in fact share no direct relationship. Thus the word tehom/thm is common to both Hebrew and Ugaritic (north Syria) and means nothing more than 'deep, abyss.' It is not a deity, like Ti'amat" (OCR "flora deity"); "creation is the massively central concern of Gen. 1-2, but it is a mere tailpiece in Enuma Elish"; "The only clear comparisons between the two are the inevitable banalities: creation of earth and sky before the plants are put on the earth, and of plants before animals (that need to eat them) and humans; it could hardly have been otherwise! The creation of light before the luminaries is the only peculiarity that might indicate any link between the Hebrew and [425] Enuma Elish narrative; but where did it earlier come from? Not known, as yet."
p. 425: "(3) The respective boats differ totally; Noah's has shiplike proportions, but the Mesopotamian one was a cube!"; "In terms of length and elaboration, Gen. 6:9-8:22 might be equal in amount to about 120 lines in Sumerian or Akkadian. Contrast the lengths of at least 370 lines in Atrahasis II-III, some 200 lines in Gilgamesh tablet XI, and the roughly 150/200 lines in the Sumerian account. Genesis thus offers a more concise, simpler account, and not an elaboration of a Mesopotamian composition."
p. 426: "Given the noncomposition of this type of fourfold and fivefold narrative framework after about 1600, it is logical to suggest that the framework and basic content of Gen. 1-11 goes back to the patriarchal period, and came as a tradition with the patriarchs westward from Mesopotamia."

Wenham 1987, WBC (library OCR, running heads)

p. xxxix: "the Atrahasis epic from the early second millennium shows that the basic plot of Gen 1-11 was already known then. The Atrahasis epic tells of the creation of mankind, then of various divine judgments on him, culminating in the flood which destroyed all but Atrahasis and his family, who escaped in a boat. As in Genesis they offer a sacrifice on leaving the ark."
p. xlvii: "Gen 1-11 as we read it is a commentary, often highly critical, on ideas current in the ancient world about the natural and supernatural world. Both individual stories as well as the final completed work seem to be a polemic against many of the commonly received notions about the gods and man. But the clear polemical thrust of Gen 1-11 must not obscure the fact that at certain points biblical and extrabiblical thought are in clear agreement. Indeed Genesis and the ancient Near East probably have more in common with each other than either has with modern secular thought."
pp. xlvii-xlviii: "are astonishingly similar. This is not to say that the writer of Genesis had ever heard or read the Gilgamesh epic: these traditions were part of the intellectual furniture of that time in the Near East, just as most people today have some idea of Darwin's Origin of Species though they have never read it."
p. 165: "Indeed, Noah is hardly a heroic figure at all." "But he never speaks." "Utnapishtim is a very active figure, hurrying hither and thither building his ship, spinning a yarn to his neighbors as to why he is doing it. Besides animals, he loads on board a large crew and all his gold and silver."
p. 166: "Here Genesis appears to be self-consciously avoiding this kind of description: Noah's obedience is all that matters." "the last thing we hear of him is his disgracing himself through drinking too much. May it be that Genesis is, in passing, quietly protesting about Mesopotamian kingship ideologies in recounting the flood story?"
p. 172: "Apart from the flood story the only other OT uses of the word are Exod 2:3, 5, where it signifies the basket of bulrushes in which baby Moses was hidden. It is probably an Egyptian loan word (tbt) meaning box or chest."
p. 173: "Used only here in the OT; elsewhere, e.g., 11:3; 14:10, [hemar] is the term. However, kupru 'bitumen,' a common Akkadian term, is used in the Gilgamesh epic (11:65, which is a remarkable parallel with the biblical tradition)."

Millard 1967 (library PDF)

pp. 14-15 (the sentence begins at the foot of p. 14): "There can be no doubt that the concept of a history of man from his creation to the Flood is similar both in Babylonian and in Hebrew." "Thus it is no longer legitimate to describe the Hebrew Flood story as 'borrowed' from a Babylonian 'original' without including its complementary Creation account."
p. 17: "However, it has yet to be shown that there was borrowing, even indirectly."
pp. 17-18 (the sentence breaks after "the two schemes"): "The two accounts undoubtedly describe the same Flood, the two schemes relate the same sequence of events." "In that the patriarch Abraham lived in Babylonia, it could be said that the stories were borrowed from there, but not that they were borrowed from any text now known to us. Granted that the Flood took place, knowledge of it must have survived to form the available accounts; while the Babylonians could only conceive of the event in their own polytheistic language, the Hebrews, or their ancestors, understood the action of God in it."

Hasel 1974, EQ 46 (biblicalstudies.org.uk PDF, running heads)

p. 81: "Soon a school of thought arose which attempted to show that there was nothing in the Old Testament that was not but a pale reflection of Babylonian ideas." "Today the situation has changed radically."
p. 89: "(4) Gen. 1 avoids the names 'sun' and 'moon' undoubtedly because these Common Semitic terms are at the same time names for deities." "(6) The enigmatic Hebrew phrase 'and the stars' in vs. 16 appears to be a parenthetical addition, whose purpose it is, in view of the prevalent star worship in Mesopotamia, to emphasize that the stars themselves are created things and nothing more."
p. 91: "It appears that the Genesis cosmology represents not only a 'complete break' with the ancient Near Eastern mythological cosmologies but represents a parting of the spiritual ways brought about by a conscious and deliberate antimythical polemic which meant an undermining of the prevailing mythological cosmologies."

Hasel 1978, AUSS 16 (library text with `[[p.N]]` markers)

p. 367: "However, the major recension of the Sumerian King List (WB 444) contains only eight and not ten kings. One text contains only seven kings (W) and another (UCBC 9-1819) either seven or eight, whereas a bilingual fragment from Ashurbanipal's library has but nine kings. Berossos and only one ancient tablet (WB 62), i.e. only two texts (of which only one is a cuneiform document), give a total of ten antediluvian kings."

Chen 2013 (library PDF text, running heads)

p. 7: "the Ur III copy of SKL (USKL; Steinkeller 2003: 269; Plate 3) and the Brockmon Collection duplicate of SKL (BT 14 ...) evidently show that the king list proper had once existed independently"; "Hallo further suggested that the antediluvian section was only secondarily added". P. 7 n. 10: "All the Mesopotamian chronographical sources with the references or allusions to the Flood are dated to the Old Babylonian or post-Old Babylonian periods (see Chapter 3)."
pp. 8-9: "the name Ziusudra, the hero in the Sumerian Flood Story but the son receiving the instructions in the Old Babylonian version of this didactic text, is nowhere to be found in the Early Dynastic III versions."
p. 254: "it is argued that Mesopotamian traditions related to the Flood only emerged from the Old Babylonian period onwards." "the Flood motif and its literary dramatizations (e.g. the plot and cast of the Flood story or epic) and chronographical constructions are largely intellectual and cultural constructs (already noted by King 1918: 102) forged in particular socio-political contexts."

Finkel 2014 (library page images; iapdsearch on `arkbeforenoahdec0000fink`, leaves only)

PT108 (page image): "Let her length and breadth be equal, / Let her floor area be one field, let her sides be one nindan high ... I set in place thirty ribs ... I set up 3,600 stanchions within her ... I apportioned one finger of bitumen for her outsides; / I apportioned one finger of bitumen for her interior ... I caused the kilns to be loaded with 28,800 (sūtu) of kupru-bitumen".
leaf 121: "Draw out the boat that you will make / On a circular plan;".
leaf 118: "the new Ark Tablet — dating to the Old Babylonian Period, probably about 1750 BC".
leaf 340: "the iconic story of the Flood, Noah and the Ark as we know it today certainly originated in the landscape of ancient Mesopotamia, modern Iraq."
leaf 342 / PT303: "Comparison of the Hebrew text with Gilgamesh XI highlights such a close and multi-point relationship between the accounts that the dependence of one upon the other is unavoidable. I have thus maintained in this book what has often been proposed before: that the Hebrew text derives from and is predicated upon a cuneiform flood story forerunner or forerunners ... In my view the Judaeans' need for their own written history led them to incorporate certain Babylonian stories of early times for which their own traditions were inadequate."

Delitzsch 1903 (archive.org `babelbible1903deli` OCR, running heads "BABEL AND BIBLE. N")

p. 39: "the library of Sardanapalus at Nineveh"; "committed to writing 2000 years before Christ"; "Xisuthros receives from the god of the watery deep the command to build a ship of certain dimensions, to coat it thoroughly with pitch".
p. 40: "On the seventh day I took forth a dove and released it"; "a swallow was sent forth"; "a raven was sent forth"; "The sweet odor was scented by the gods, etc., etc."; "This entire story, precisely as it is here written, afterwards travelled to Canaan".
p. 41: "two distinct versions of the Flood, which are not only absolutely impossible from the point of view of natural science, but are also at diametrical variance with each other"; "The ten Babylonian kings who reigned before the Flood have also been accepted in the Bible as the ten antediluvian patriarchs, and the agreement is perfect in all details."

ANET (library OCR re-typesetting; standard pages)

p. 4 (Wilson): "Thus, at the beginning of Egyptian history, there was an approach to the Logos Doctrine. The extant form of this document dates only to 700 B.C., but linguistic, philological, and geopolitical evidence is conclusive in support of its derivation from an original text more than two thousand years older."
p. 60 (Speiser): "There is as yet no general agreement as regards the date of composition. None of the extant texts antedates the first millennium B.C. On the internal evidence, however, of the context and the linguistic criteria, the majority of the scholars would assign the epic to the Old Babylonian period, i.e. the early part of the second millennium B.C. There does not appear to be any convincing reason against this earlier dating."
p. 101 (Speiser): "The oldest and longest of these (B) comes from the El-Amarna archives (fourteenth century B.C.)"; "When they offer thee bread of death, / Thou shalt not eat (it). When they offer thee water of death, / Thou shalt not drink (it)."

Lichtheim (iapdsearch)

Vol. I p. 51 (ancientegyptianl0001lich leaf 77, folio "51" in the OCR): "The text is a work of the Old Kingdom, but its precise date is not known."
Vol. III p. 5 (ancientegyptianl0003lich leaf 23; index "Shabaka, 5"): "In this work King Shabaka of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty alleges to have copied an early work which he had found in worm-eaten condition. The claim, along with the strongly archaizing language of the text, misled generations of Egyptologists into assigning the composition to the Old Kingdom. A recent article by F. Junge (MDIK, 29 [1973], 195-204) makes it appear certain that it is a work of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. Readers of this anthology should in their minds transfer this text from Volume I of Ancient Egyptian Literature into the context of the pseudepigrapha of the present volume."

Kramer 1967 (library HTML, tag-stripped)

"his Flood deposits at Ur go back to at least 3500 B.C., and this is far too early for the Ziusudra Deluge"; the Kish layer "lay directly above a stratum of 'Jemdet Nasr' remains, that is an archaeological horizon ranging from about 3200 to 3000 B.C."

Gilgamesh XI (eBL edition, George's translation; ebl-2022, read from the TSV)