Welcome to my wife’s and my website.
Captivating topics motivate the writing.
Twists of Interest include:
Others we aim to pursue.
Thank you for visiting!
Stop
&
Note!!!
To view a subject in its intended order, click under “topics” at the top right!
[Ebal, thirty-two of thirty-two]
The Mt. Ebal Curse tablet exhibits compelling evidence. We should not ignore it. We should act on it.
But why?
Consider this quote:
“The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.”
Winston Churchill
Note
This is the thirty-first and concluding post of my memorandum on the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet.
If you arrived here from other than captivatingtwists.com and wish to start the journey from the beginning, click here.
Otherwise, continue below.
With this in mind, we traveled on an epic journey. We glanced at the Late Bronze Age through the Greco-Roman period. In the modern era, we pondered Wellhausen’s musings. Afterwards, we saw Adam Zertal’s enigmatic discovery and Frankie Snyder’s curious find. We persisted through the scourge of COVID-19. Then we viewed Stripling’s rocky attempts to introduce the tablet to the world.
We also did scientific detective work and invoked a legal measure.
The try highlights an obvious truth. It is this: We have little hope of discerning wisdom from the past without evidence.
We have seen that Mt. Ebal’s Joshua’s Altar lies in a dangerous part of the world. There, it faces real threats.
If destroyed, its secrets cannot hope to instruct our future.
This should warrant aggressive action.
This includes the U.S. leasing Joshua’s Altar.
Why? Clarifying evidence may lie on Mt. Ebal, evidence of monumental importance.
Losing it would constitute a disaster of incomprehensible proportions.
Justifications for vigilance and action abound.
In view of this, I argue that we must do something now! Do not let this opportunity to glimpse the remote past become scattered dust! How then could it inform our future?
For this reason, I have written the letters found in the supplemental materials. I addressed these to my congressional delegation. They argue for the lease described above.
Why? The tablet presents actionable evidence. Its assault on history is credible. Delay imperils precious testimony.
Final Thoughts
We thus arrive at the end of our Mount Ebal adventure.
Share what you have learned. Tell of the forceful narrative of the Curse Tablet.
Also, encourage the lease and proper excavation of Joshua’s Altar.
Afterwards, the Curse Tablet may testify not to a possibility. Then it could underscore an inescapable reality.
What might this reality be?
Weigh:
If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me.
The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must listen to him.
Philip found Nathanael and told him “We have found the One Moses wrote about in the Law, the One the prophets foretold–Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
But now apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, as attested by the Law and the Prophets. 1
What is the bottom line? It is this: Evidence clarifying, such as above, must not be at risk!1
Now, for questions: What is the likelihood that authorities will install my initiatives? What circumstances could improve those chances?
Thank you for engaging with this topic!
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.
To support this work, you can donate below. If so, thank you for the encouragement.
Next Post: Supplemental material
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Wrapping Up III
[Ebal, thirty-one of thirty-two]
What action should you take on this matter?
Consider contacting your congressional delegation.
One of the easiest ways to do so is to visit your representative’s and your senators’ home pages. Then click the “Contact” button. There, you complete your personal information. Afterwards, you identify the subject of interest. I clicked either “international or foreign relations”.
In the message block, you might write something like this:
Dear Representative ________,
(or Senator ________,)
We should give Moses, Joshua, and the Hebrews of the Conquest a chance to prove who they are!
Please work toward the U.S. leasing Joshua’s Altar in Judea / Samaria.
In thirty-two posts, the website captivatingtwists.com details the altar’s plight. To access these, hover over topics in the site’s navigation bar. Then click “The Mount Ebal Curse Tablet.”
There you find these arguments:
- On Mt. Ebal, evidence of Joshua and the Hebrews of the Conquest may lie exposed;
- Such evidence challenges world history;
- Threats of the altar’s destruction mandate its prompt excavation;
- Despite the geopolitical dangers, the U.S. should intervene; and
- A U.S. lease will best allay the issues presented.
Please read these brief, straightforward, yet comprehensive posts.
Afterwards, institute legislative and diplomatic measures necessary to make the lease a reality.
Thank you for representing me in Washington and on the world stage.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
_____________
Your name
You can message the same or similarly.
Now, for a question. How many such messages must your congressional delegation receive before they take notice?
Let me know in the comments section.
Thank you for engaging with this topic thus far!
The next post I will title: “Curse Tablet Conclusion.”
I look forward to continuing with you there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe,” “like,” and “share.”
To support this work, you can donate below. If so, thank you for the encouragement.
Next Post: “Curse Tablet Conclusion“
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Wrapping Up II
[Ebal, thirty of thirty-two]
When you raise an issue, the military expects you to offer a solution.
Note
This is the thirtieth post of my memorandum on the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet.
If you have accessed this post from other than captivatingtwists.com and wish to start the journey from the beginning, click here.
Otherwise, continue below
In that spirit, I thus address this question: How might the U.S. excavate Joshua’s Altar?
I respond: The U.S. should lease Joshua’s Altar from the Palestinian Authority. Historical examples of such include:
Afterward, we should address the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). There, we should demand that it begin the process of declaring the altar a World Heritage site.
First, Congress must repeal or change several laws. These deter the U.S. from interacting with the Palestinian Authority (PA).
These include the following:
Following these actions, the U.S. should negotiate the lease. The ninety-nine-year term would include not only the altar site. It would also include the area within the surrounding stone “footprints”.
The lease provisions grant the U.S. authority to excavate the site. It also grants the U.S. ownership of any artifacts discovered.
Furthermore, the lease includes these articles:
Achieving this lease may not be easy. Certainly, it is not something one would expect a son-in-law or golf buddy to do.
I am confident, however, that our professional diplomats could do this.
To ease the World Heritage Site designation, the U.S. should take more measures:
Both the U.S. and Israel left UNESCO in 2019 during the first Trump administration.
The U.S. rejoined during the Biden years.
President Trump pulled us out again in 2025, effective December 2026.1
The United States should remain in UNESCO. There, it should exert its influence on this and other matters.
UNESCO is the United Nations agency responsible for preserving cultural sites. These are important to humankind around the globe. It also promotes science and education worldwide.
Click here to see the listings of its World Heritage Sites. Notice that this includes ones in Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Currently, it is unlikely that President Trump will support UNESCO membership.
This could change, however, after the November 2026 midterm elections. Congressional supporters may then have greater political power over such actions.
Besides, the President’s base should favor Joshua’s Altar being a World Heritage Site.
Further, the U.S. remaining a force in UNESCO makes good public policy sense.
Our withdrawal forfeits influence on the world stage to China. We should not desire this in the areas of culture, science, and education.
For one, this emboldens China’s position as a more reliable partner on these fronts.
But the danger is more specific.
Consider China’s influence over education as an example.
Our absence from AI conversations here could lead to distasteful results. Our interest highlights privacy and consumer safety. China emphasizes other interests. It values maintaining control over online content creation and dissemination. That is within China, and its conceptions of cybersecurity more broadly.”1
We should not concede to China the influence of such multinational norms.
The same applies to science and culture.
Thus, I have written to my Congressional delegation about this matter. I request that they take these steps:
Readers, I also encourage you to write similar letters to your congressional delegations. The next post will assist with this.
Now for a question: Do you agree that abandoning our UNESCO influence is a poor public policy move?
Let me know in the comments section.
Thank you for engaging with this topic thus far!
The next post I will title: “Taking Action.”
I look forward to continuing with you there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe,” “like,” and “share.”
To support this work, you can donate below. If so, thank you for the encouragement.
Next Post: “Taking Action“
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Wrapping Up I
[Ebal, twenty-nine of thirty-two]
Before concluding this memorandum, I address three questions–loose ends.
This post addresses: Does Mount Ebal hide other important historical evidence?
The next one contends with: How might the U.S. excavate Joshua’s Altar?
Finally, I examine: What action should we take about this archaeological site?
Note
This is the twenty-ninth post of my memorandum on the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet.
If you have accessed this post from other than captivatingtwists.com and wish to start the journey from the beginning, click here.
Otherwise, continue below.
Hidden Evidence?
The Curse Tablet likely remembered or reenacted Joshua’s initial ceremony. Yet, in that event, it probably did not take part.
The evidence indicates that the author inscribed it later.
Why? Archaeologists have not yet excavated part of the small round altar. This part most likely existed at Joshua’s time. This implies that the author placed the Curse Tablet on the altar after the initial event.
That raises this possibility: Another tablet accompanied the initial ceremony and its sacrifices!
Dr. Stripling disagrees. It would surprise him, he has said, “if Joshua’s altar revealed any other curse tablets.”2
He surmises that the tablet’s author inscribed it contemporaneously with Joshua’s ceremony.
But note that Stripling much anticipates further excavations. He plans to do this as soon as the present geopolitical tensions subside.
But why the anticipation? In part, it must be that further excavation and analysis raise interesting propositions.
First, the Book of Job implies that the ancients often inscribed on lead.3
Stripling’s team has found three writing styluses at the site. These were in the east dump, the one that Zertal designated for altars.4
This suggests several writings on metal. These may lie on the small altar or in the west dump, which Stripling has not yet wet-sifted.
An ancient author may have etched a revealing message on a gold ring, earrings, or a bracelet. Afterwards, they included them in a sacrifice.
An original tablet could also have been part of Joshua’s ceremony.
Additionally, the site harbors other valuable archaeological evidence.
Recently, geomagnetic dating has proved key to dating ancient sites.1
After solids heat to an extreme temperature and then cool, something revealing happens. Their magnetic minerals align with the Earth’s core geomagnetic signature. Compare these with the signatures of other burn sites from a similar period. This gives clues about their relative dates.
Scientists should analyze the magnetic signatures of the stones from Joshua’s Altar.
This also applies to the tablet and the pottery sherds found there.
New artifacts derived from the small altar could also present valuable information.1
Match this data to other burn data from sites across the Late Bronze Age Middle East. Examples include those from Egyptian, Hittite, Ugaritic, Minoan, Mycenaean, Trojan, and Babylonian sources. It also includes biblical sites at Jericho, Ai, and Shiloh.
These scientists would compare with an anchor, a known contemporary date.
I realize that zeroing in on a solid anchor date in such ancient times may be difficult. Still, we should retrieve and store the geomagnetic data. That way, if archaeologists identify an anchor, if one does not now exist, the data will be available.
Precision calculation of Joshua’s Altar would follow.
In sum, there is archaeological evidence that mankind should glean. This can prove crucial to unraveling the mysteries underlying Mt. Ebal.
Again, we need to excavate and analyze Joshua’s Altar posthaste.
Now for today’s question: What burn events might compare with that of Joshua’s Altar?
Let me know in the comment section below.
Thank you for engaging with this topic thus far!
The next post I will title: “A Solution.”
I look forward to continuing with you there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe,” “like,” and “share.”
To support this work, you can donate below. If so, thank you for the encouragement.Next Post: “A Solution”
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Dissecting the Arguments V I
[Ebal, twenty-eight of thirty-two]
Has Haughwout refuted Stripling’s claims? Here is my decision!
Note
This is the twenty-eighth post of my memorandum on the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet.
If you have accessed this post from other than captivatingtwists.com and wish to start the journey from the beginning, click here.
Otherwise, continue below.
On that, his conclusion doubles down. There he states,
“The only substantiated claim that Stripling et al can make at this time is that they have found a very old, small piece of folded lead on Mt. Ebal using wet sifting.”
Thus, Haughwout declares that he disproved Stripling’s contentions.
I measure this claim against a standard like that set out by the U.S. Supreme Court. The High Court’s standard governs summary judgment in our federal system.
To decide for Haughwout, I must conclude a specific point. I must find that a reasonable person could not genuinely dispute the material fact(s) of his claim. I must deny Haughwout’s “disproval” if I find otherwise.
Further, I condensed Haughwout’s claim to a singular material fact. It is that: At least one of the following statements is true:
I find that a reasonable person could genuinely dispute this statement.
Haughwout thus failed in his refutation.
Here is a list of points that support my adjudication:
Despite the above, I conclude that Haughwout’s criticisms significantly advance scholarly debate. That includes the points where I argue that he errs. Why? Such clearly stated, academically advanced reasoning engenders a healthy scientific and scholarly exchange.
The stark exception is the claim of a “refutation/ disproval”.
He should have represented his work as a “denial” of Stripling’s claims about the tablet.
This mischaracterization can harm science and scholarship. It can quench legitimate funding. It can block necessary permits.
Such hinders truth.
Thus, I decided to deny Haughwout’s “refutation”.
So I call Stripling’s article “Safe!” Haughwout’s “refutation” tag does not apply.
Next, I address a loose end!
But beforehand, here are some questions: Do you agree with my adjudication? Why or why not?
Let me know in the comment section below.
Thank you for engaging with this topic thus far!
The next post I will title: “A Loose End.”
I look forward to continuing with you there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.
To support this work, you can donate below. If so, thank you for the encouragement.
Next post: “A Loose End”
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Dissecting the Arguments V
[Ebal, twenty-seven of thirty-two]
Here, I examine the last part of Haughwout’s material fact. He contends that a Hebrew before 1250 B. C. did not author the tablet.
To rule for Haughwout, I must find that a reasonable person could not genuinely dispute this.
Otherwise, this part of his material fact fails to support his “refutation”.
This I strive to decipher in these steps:
As before, I outline Haughwout’s position first. Find this below the magenta banner.
Against that, I push back below the yellow.
Last, I announce my findings beneath the purple banner.
Note
This is the twenty-seventh post of my memorandum on the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet.
If you have accessed this post from other than captivatingtwists.com and wish to start the journey from the beginning, click here.
Otherwise, continue below.
Not a Hebrew from before 1250 B. C.
The artifact’s nature and provenance refute Stripling’s dating. A Hebrew did not inscribe the tablet in the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age. Here are reasons why:
Anachronistic Defixio
Stripling links his curse tablet to a culture alien to the early Hebrews. A Late Bronze Age Hebrew defixio would be about a seven-hundred-year anachronism.
Tortured letter and word sequence
Stripling et. al. use a contorted letter sequence. Thereby, they justify their Hebrew words and chiastic interpretation.
The direction that the letters and words travel strains credibility. See here.
Wrong Nature and Provenance
Rather than these tortured wanderings, prominent archaeologists and epigraphers offer sensible alternative interpretations.
For one, Dr. Gad Barnea and Dr. Robert Cargill suggest that the artifact is not a defixio. To them, it is a clasp for fastening a strand of decorative string or a hair barrette. The markings merely decorate the object. They identify no particular culture. Their origin could be Canaanite, Phoenician, or Moabite. They might also belong to other sojourners in the ancient Middle East.
Additionally, Prof. Amhai Mazar suggests a fishing weight. This idea fits well with a translation of the tablet’s “TMT” letters, Figure 7’s #18, 19, and 20. In Mesopotamian, this means “depth”– logical parlance for fishing gear.
Inconclusive Lead and Pottery Dating
Neither the lead nor the pottery analysis dates the tablet.
I. Lead analysis
The lead analysis alone does not pin the tablet to the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age. The Labrion mine exported lead to the Middle East for about a millennium. This extended to centuries after the Early Iron Age. This artifact could have arrived in this part of the Middle East in those later times.
II. Pottery Dating
Also, pottery cannot fix this artifact’s date. Such requires verified stratification correspondence. Here we lack this.
This object, for example, could have been a theatre ticket dropped by a Roman soldier. There it lay on or near ground level for centuries. Then Zertal’s team laid a discard pile on top of it.
Some 40 years later, the Stripling team transported the entire pile to a neutral site. In that process, they intermingled pottery items. This made it impossible to correlate the tablet with other items.
One thus cannot distinguish a ground-level Roman object from a Late Bronze Age item.
Thus, we cannot date this artifact via pottery and lead analysis.
So there should be no genuine dispute about the material fact here. Did a Hebrew of the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age inscribe the tablet? The probability is minuscule. Neither lead nor pottery analysis provides reliable dating for this object. Also, better theories exist. These suggest that this artifact was not a defixio. Such would be a seven-hundred-year anachronism. More plausible are either a hairpiece, a net sinker, or a theatre ticket. All could have derived from a non-Hebrew at a late date.
Hebrew of 1250 B. C. +
Here I respond to the above:
An Anachronistic Defixio?
Stripling’s article made no anachronistic connection between the tablet and Greco-Roman culture.
When Frankie Snyder reported the lead object in her tray, she recognized it as a defixio. So did Stripling. Yet, he realized the inconsistency. He knew that this presented a dating dilemma. He knew that this did not match Zertal’s careful pottery analysis for the Mt. Ebal site.
Later, the tomographic scans revealed the tablet’s proto-alphabetic script. For Stripling, this anchored the tablet. It had to be from before 1250 B. C., the time of this type of writing. 1 It thus could not be Greco-Roman.
Henceforth, he used the term “defixio” as an aid to understanding. The defixio label communicated that he had a sealed tablet containing a curse.
To other archaeologists, the term “defixio” told much about the tablet. They envisioned these traits:
He, however, was not ascribing any Greco-Roman cultural connection.
Stripling contrasted this defixio with the Greco-Roman variant. For example, he noted the curse’s titular nature. 3
He emphasized that it was Hebrew, not Greco-Roman, for other reasons. These include:
Again, Stripling ascribed no anachronistic Greek-Roman connection to the defixio.
Letter and Word Sequence
Haughwout complains about the boustrophedon nature of Galil’s proposed text. The wording’s direction of travel, he claims, is too extreme.
Yet, reconsider the map of the tablet’s proposed letter and word order here. It starts at the bottom left, proceeds up the left side. Then it twists and turns a bit in the top left corner. Next, the text moves across the top. Then it moves down the right side and culminates in tucking into the middle. The logic is as if one is coiling a rope.
Stripling’s team found the tablet within an altar’s waste pile. One can thus infer that the inscriber intended its message for God. Thus, the author had no concern about man’s understanding of the message.
Still, contrary to Haughwout’s insistence, the sequence is coherent even for us.
Barrette or Sinker?
Might the artifact have been an ornate barrette or a fishing weight? The evidence suggests, “Not likely!”
Of the two, the hair accessory seems most plausible. If for no other reason, one would more expect this on a mountain far from a fishery. The Sea of Galilee is fifty-seven miles (ninety-one kilometers) from Mt. Ebal.
Yet, both seem incongruous with the tablet’s vibe. I can think of a lot of things I would write on such. “God’s death curse” would not be one–not for a fishing net and especially not for a woman’s hair.
Haughwout has a simple strategy to establish his “refutation” here. It is by announcing a list of alternative tablet functions.
But our standard requires otherwise. He must show that a reasonable person could not genuinely dispute this part of his material fact. That is, a Hebrew of the Late Bronze or Early Iron Age did not inscribe the tablet.
A person, however, could list these reasons for disputing this:
Note here, also, the inconsistency of Haughwout’s argument supporting the net sinker theory. He suggests that “TMT” (Figure 7’s #’s: 18, 19, and 20) may represent a proto-alphabetic word. That is the Mesopotamian word for “depth”. Yet, throughout his article, he argues something else. He argues that the tablet has neither proto-alphabetic letters nor words. 1
Haughwout conjectures that these proto-alphabetic letters spell a Mesopotamian word meaning “depth”. He does not, however, explain the obvious retort. Why not the Hebrew word for “You will die!”?
Lead and Pottery Dating?
Haughwout makes some valid points here. Yes, neither the lead nor the pottery analysis makes iron-clad dating assessments. But Stripling never alleged such.
They do, however, as Stripling contends, support dating the tablet from 1400 to 1200 B.C.
However, it is not necessary to decide this. For Haughwout himself concedes the issue.
How? He acknowledges that proto-alphabetic script would date to 1400 to 1200 B. C. 1
Also, he acknowledges that the letters “TMT” (Figure 7, # 18, 19, and 20) are proto-alphabetic.
A Roman soldier’s theatre ticket
How and why would this ticket contain proto-alphabetic Hebrew? Yes, there are possible explanations. But the chances of these are remote. These leave room for a reasonable person to doubt Haughwout’s theory.
1250 + Finding
I find that Haughwout failed to carry his burden on this last part of his material fact.
He asserts that a Hebrew from before 1250 B. C. did not inscribe the tablet.
Yet, a reasonable person could genuinely dispute this.
There are four justifications for this.
First, Stripling’s article made no anachronistic connection between the tablet and Greco-Roman culture.
Second, one could conclude that the tablet’s letter and word sequencing is reasonable. This boustrophedon offering is not only appropriate for the eyes of God. It is also one discernible to the eyes of man.
Third, affiliating the artifact with the biblical Mountain of Curses seems reasonable. Compare this with the proposed options of a fishing sinker, a hair adornment, or a theatre ticket. The former better fits the provenance and location.
Fourth, part of Haughwout’s criticisms does more to strengthen Stripling’s dating conclusions.
He acknowledges two points.
Then he declares that it may be Mesopotamian for “depth”.
Yet he fails to explain why it could not be Hebrew for “You will die!”
We have now reflected on the four portions of Haughwout’s material fact. It is time for my adjudication. Has Haughwout achieved the refutation he claims?
I will announce this in the next post.
Meanwhile, here is a question. What evidence could strengthen the tablet’s Late Bronze to Early Iron Age case?
Share your thoughts in the comment section below.
Thank you for engaging with this topic thus far!
The next post I will title: “My Decision.”
I look forward to continuing with you there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.
To support this work, you can donate below. If so, thank you for the encouragement.
Next post: “My Decision“
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Dissecting the Arguments IV
[Ebal, twenty-six of thirty-two]
Again, I discuss Haughwout’s material fact. The question is this: Does the tablet contain “YHW”-the holy name?
Haughwout declares, “No”.
A reasonable person can not genuinely dispute this. Otherwise, it does not support his “refutation”.
I examine the issue in these steps:
As before, I first outline Haughwout’s position. Find this below the magenta banner.
Against that, I push back below the yellow.
Last, I announce my findings beneath the purple banner.Note
This is the twenty-sixth post of my memorandum on the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet.
If you have accessed this post from other than captivatingtwists.com and wish to start the journey from the beginning, click here.
Otherwise, continue below.
“YHW” Is Not a WordTwice on the inner tablet, Galil finds the name for the Hebrew God.
For simplicity, I focus on the Upper Yahweh of Figure 7’s #’s 11, 12, and 13.
With Upper Yahweh, Haughwout perceives two primary problems. He disputes the letter count. He also disparages visibility.
These problems, Haughwout concludes, disqualify this “YHW.” It is neither a word nor proto-alphabetic letters.
Letter Count
For “Yahweh”, three letters are inadequate. The earliest otherwise recognized Hebrew spelling comes from the ninth century. It uses four letters–“YHWH”.
Such vacillation among scribes on the name of God raises red flags.
Stripling counters that three letters conform to the Egyptian spelling. In that country, one finds a contemporary Late Bronze Age inscription. It uses what some scholars contend is a three-letter form. 1
Haughwout minimizes this earlier Egyptian case. First, some scholars allege that the three Egyptian symbols actually correspond to “YHWA”. Further, he notes, translating from Egyptian to Hebrew is problematic.
Haughwout thus surmises that only a four-letter rendition of the name is appropriate.
Visibilty
Besides, two of the letters that Galil purports to spell “YHW” present other problems.
The first letter “Yod”, Figure 7 # 11, he maintains, is not there.
Additionally, the last letter “Waw” (Figure 7 #13) is “speculative”.
Haughwout’s Conclusion
As discussed before, one can distinguish coincidental marks from actual letters. Letters coalesce to form a word. Mere marks will not.
“YHW” has too few letters to form the name of God.
Additionally, some of its proposed letters are indistinguishable.
So, the above problems disqualify “YHW”. It is neither a word nor proto-alphabetic letters.
“YHW” Pushback
Haughwout raises three objections. First, he objects to Yahweh’s three-letter spelling. Second, he observes that one of its proposed letters, the “Yod”, is invisible. Third, the “Waw” is speculative.
Below, I address each.
Three Letters Explained
There are two pushbacks here.
The following is the argument about the second.
Again, in the proto-alphabetic era, writing was consonantal. In other words, the script had no vowel markers.
Thus, a proto-alphabetic scribe would have written “YHW”. This would have been the case even if the ancients pronounced the name as in modern Hebrew. Modern Hebrew pronounces a vowel sound after the consonant “W”. This the ancient Hebrews understood without any designation.
Later, scribes added an “H” to the end of words to capture the understood vowel sound.2
The “H” remained largely silent. Thus, Hebrew speakers voiced only the vowel sound, likely an “eh” or “ah.”3
Thus, the later scribes did not alter the name of God. They modified the spelling by adding the letter “H”. This acted as a vowel at the end of the name. They thereby ensured that they captured the intended pronunciation.
This explanation harmonizes the ancient three letters with the later four.
Absent “Yod”?
Haughwout, who is not an epigrapher, alleges that an important letter does not exist. That is the initial “Yod” of our “YHW” set.
Galil and Pieter Girt van der Veen, both esteemed epigraphers, declare its presence.
I agree with Galil and van der Veen. The “Yod” is faint. Yet, in the composite photos of Figure 4, I still distinguish it under “Taw” and above the leg of “He.”
See also Table 9, photo 2(a).
Consider Table 10, photo # 3. This hints at this letter’s negative bulge.
Speculative “Waw”?
Haughwout concedes our “YHW’s He” (See Table 3 [1 a & b]). The “Waw,” he, however, characterizes as “highly speculative.”
Again, Galil and van Der Veen, the esteemed epigraphers, see this “Waw”.
Even so, could Picasso himself have drawn a more convincing mace? (See Table 4, 1(a & b)!)
“YHW” Finding
A reasonable person could genuinely dispute Haughwout’s contention here. That is, the tablet does not display God’s name. Those justifications include:
The third part of Haughwout’s material fact thus fails.
A reasonable person could genuinely dispute these three things:
Thus, these parts of Haughwout’s material fact do not support his “refutation” claim.
Our next post examines the remaining part. That is, a Hebrew did not inscribe the tablet before 1250 B. C.
Let us get to it! But first, here are some questions: Do you see the “Yod” of our “YHW”? If so, why do you think some scholars insist that it is not there?
Let me know in the “comments” below>
Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!
The next post I entitle: “Pre-1250 B.C. Hebrew?”
I look forward to continuing with you there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.
To support this work, you can donate below. If so, thank you for the encouragement.
Next post: “Pre-1250 B.C. Hebrew?“
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Dissecting the Arguments III
[Ebal, twenty-five of thirty-two]
Here, I examine the second part of Haughwout’s material fact. It is that the tablet does not contain the proto-alphabetic word “ARWR”.
There must be no genuine dispute about this. Otherwise, this part of Haughwout’s argument fails to pass our test. It cannot support his “refutation”.
I ponder this in these steps:
Note
This is the twenty-fifth post of my memorandum on the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet.
If you have accessed this post from other than captivatingtwists.com and wish to start the journey from the beginning, click here.
Otherwise, continue below.
“ARWR” Is Not a Word
Haughwout identifies one way to distinguish a coincidental mark from an actual letter. A letter will usually coalesce with other letters to form a word. Coincidental marks likely will not.
Galil identified “ARWR” six times on the inner tablet. This word equals the modern Hebrew word pronounced: “ARUR”. It means “cursed”.
Haughwout counters that this is not a word a Hebrew before 1250 B.C. would have written.
Why? Ancient Hebrew had no vowel indicators, he declares. Thus, “ARR” would have been the proper spelling, not “ARWR”.
Later, around the ninth century B.C., Hebrew changed. Writers began using consonants to replicate vowels. This was rare within a word rather than at the end until the eighth century B.C.
This use of “Waw” to mimic the “U” vowel inside of “ARWR” is thus inappropriate. It is a four to six-hundred-year anachronism.
One, thus, cannot argue in good faith that “ARWR” forms a proto-alphabetic word. Instead, one should consider that a combination of cracks, scratches, or dents.
“ARWR” Pushback
For simplicity, we examine here only one of the six “ARWR” iterations Galil identified. It is Figure 7, #25-28, the “ARWR” we earlier discussed in Post #13.
Haughwout avers that happenstance dents caused our “ARWR”. This applies also to the rest of the inner tablet characters.
For this, he states a main reason. It is one of the underlying causes of his disillusionment with the tablet from the beginning. It is that one should not accept marks as human writing unless they coalesce to form words. “ARWR” is not a Hebrew word that a person of the proto-alphabetic era would have written, he concludes. Thus, those marks do not qualify as letters.
In essence, Haughwout declares that “ARWR” is not a word of the thirteenth century B. C. for one reason. It is because it has too many letters. As explained above, he insists that the proper spelling is “ARR”. A Hebrew of that time, he continues, would not have substituted the consonant “W” for a vowel sound. Especially, they would not have done this within a word.
Yet we argue something different. We argue that a reasonable person can genuinely dispute something. It is that “ARWR” is not proto-alphabetic Hebrew.
Here are several reasons why:
Arguing in his article a point about syntax, Haughwout declares:
“However, we do not currently have a large enough corpus of second-millennium texts from the land of Canaan for comparison.”
What is a takeaway? Solid premises about writing in Canaan before 1000 B.C. are impossible. Why? We now have too few examples.
Rules for both syntax and vowel markers at that time are speculative at best.
While this hardly needs illustration, it does merit remembering.
Exceptions are normal in language. We should expect the same of proto-alphabetic languages.
Modern Hebrew pronounces the word for “cursed” as “ARUR”. Likely, the ancients did likewise.
So, imagine an ancient scribe spelling the word he knew sounded like “ARUR”. Could he have reasoned, “I hear something else in that word? What about adding the consonant ‘W’? ‘ARWR’ sounds a little closer to ‘ARUR’ than does ‘ ARR ‘- the spelling Haughwout would saddle him with.
Would someone back then have pulled out a grammar book and said, “You cannot do that!”?
The answer is not likely.
More likely, the inscriber would have said, “I like this. I am going to stick with it.”
They may not decide to do this with other words. They may not realize that they could do this.
They decided to go with “ARWR” as a better way to sound out their word for “cursed”.
What could best evidence that the “ARWR” spelling endured? It would be that the four-letter spelling persisted. In other words, it lasted from the remote proto-alphabetic era through to a later age?
Obvious evidence would include similar examples in both epochs.
Our tablet provides evidence for the “ARWR” spelling in the proto-alphabetic era.
Compare this with a Jerusalem stone inscription. This allegedly marks the tomb of Shebnayahu, King Hezekiah’s royal steward. (Coincidentally, scripture records Isaiah’s prophecy about this aide’s hubris.)
The scribe of Shebnayahu’s tomb used a Hebrew consonant in the word “cursed”. He did this to represent the “U” sound in the eighth century B. C.
On both, the spelling is similar. Each uses four letters, with a consonant substituting for the vowel “U”.
We can thus surmise the spelling of “ARUR”. Between our tablet and the Shebnayahu stone, it stayed constant. It was our “AR (consonant) R”.
Also, note this. Between these times, there are no instances of an “ARR” spelling.
On what grounds do I surmise that there are none during that time? The reason is that Haughwout does not cite such. That he would have done had he known of one.
It is thus reasonable to determine that “AR (consonant) R” endured.
Thus, a reasonable person could doubt Haughwout’s material fact here. One can genuinely dispute that the tablet does not exhibit the Hebrew word for “cursed.”
This second part of Haughwout’s material fact fails.
ARWR” Finding
A reasonable person can raise an issue about this part of the material fact. They can genuinely dispute that the word “cursed” does not appear on the tablet,
These are the reasons:
This part of the material fact thus fails to support Haughwout’s claim of refutation.
Now our question: Would Haughwout have cited an example of “ARR” before the Eighth Century B.C. had he known of one?
Next up, we examine Haughwout’s arguments about the alleged supreme name, “YHW”.
Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!
The next post I will title “The YHW Debate.”
I look forward to continuing with you there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.
To support this work, you can donate below. If so, thank you for the encouragement.
Next post: The “YHW“ Debate
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Dissecting the Arguments II
[Ebal, twenty-four of thirty-two]
Here we test the first part of Haughwout’s material fact. It is whether the tablet contains proto-alphabetic letters.1
To check this, I take these steps:
First, I outline Haughwout’s position. Find this below the magenta banner.
Against it, I push back. You find this below the yellow.
Last, I announce my findings below the purple banner.
Note
This is the twenty-fourth post of my memorandum on the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet.
If you have accessed this post from other than captivatingtwists.com and wish to start the journey from the beginning, click here.
Otherwise, continue below.
No Letters
When Haughwout began studying the photos of Stripling’s article, his impression was favorable. The tablet’s top right corner indeed seemed to display several proto-alphabetic characters. These were Teh, Meh, He, Teh, and Aleph-Figure 7’s #’s 18, 19, 12, 20, and 21.
For him, the most impressive was Aleph #21. Best, he felt it displayed the appropriate proto-alphabetic characteristics.
His opinion, however, soon changed.
On close review, he noticed crack lines. These ran from the tablet’s edge to intersect with that character.
Prominent were the two cracks that he deduced had, over time, created the “Ox’s” horns. (See here.)
This Aleph’s favorable status thus degenerated. He deduced that it was only the chance product of cracks. No longer was it an exquisite inscription. It now presented a coincidental aberration with disproportioned horns. This disqualified it as a man-made letter. 1
Disillusionment followed also for the other four likely script candidates. All he concluded were cracks, scratches, or dents in the lead.
Some of the primary reasons for this were:
Haughwout thus finally surmised that his favored characters presented major existential problems. Doubly, these troubles applied to the rest.
Pushback on Haughwout’s Improbable letters
I. Lovely Aleph
Haughwout first saw “Aleph” (Figure 7, # 21) as a gorgeous proto-alphabetic inscription.
On this, I agree.
Note its beauty! It is as elegant as the calligraphy at the beginning of a chapter in a medieval manuscript.
See Table 2 (3a and 3b). What do you think?
Haughwout, however, finds what he considers a fatal flaw. Crack lines intersect the horns.
These, he concludes, reveal the inscription to be a happenstance accident. (See Haughwout’s illustration again.)
But Dr. Pieter van der Veens of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz thinks otherwise. He is one of the Stripling team’s epigraphers. He is also an expert in ancient Near Eastern languages and inscriptions. Force, he says, applied to a stylus near the tablet’s edge likely caused the cracks.
In fact, along the tablet’s top, this “Aleph” is among the closest.1
Note too that Haughwout’s notations appear on a photo that blurs this Aleph.”
Look instead at Table 2, (3a).
On this clearer image, you can see that the possible cracks do not meld with the horn tips. Both horns suffer some misdirection. That is where the aesthetic horns end, and the likely cracks intersect.
Both of the aesthetic horns are darker, wider, and likely deeper.
Plus, at the intersection points, the cracks’ directions deviate.
The above emphasizes the likelihood that an author crafted a beautiful letter. Then, connecting cracks marred it.
II. Tiny Letters
Haughwout also complains about the letters’ small sizes. Here, the simple explanation is that the author had little space to work. Plus, in that small space, he had a serious message to convey-one not intended for human eyes but only for God.
Still, though, they are visible to man.
III. Bottom Bulges
Further, Haughwout scoffs at the idea of a negative script on the tablet’s bottom. To him, the bulges on “Outer B” only replicate inner tablet marks, scratches, and cracks.
This evidence deserves less flippant appraisal.
Consider these examples:
Haughwout contends that happenstance dents and scratches cause the opposing bulges. This theory must account for these factors:
Could a reasonable person dispute the material fact addressed here? Yes, with sincerity, they could doubt it. They could determine that the tablet markings might be proto-alphabetic script.
This part of Haughwout’s material fact thus fails to support his refutation.
Improbable Letter Finding
The evidence shows a genuine dispute about Haughwout’s proposition here. Haughwout says that the tablet bears no proto-alphabetic script. A reasonable person could genuinely respond, “No, it might!”
Haughwout concedes that Figure 7’s #’s 18, 19, 12, 20, and 21 represent proto-alphabetic forms. Still, he concludes that they are otherwise. He says that they are only coincidental cracks and dents.
Yet, a reasonable person could give this genuine counter:
So, Haughwout’s improbable letter arguments do not support his “refutation” claim. He has failed to meet our test. A reasonable person could assess the facts. They could genuinely decide that the tablet may contain proto-alphabetic letters.
Might another of his arguments fare better? Next up, we will examine the first of his “improbable word” criticisms. That claim is that “ARWR”-“Cursed,” is not there.
oward which
Now here are some questions. To what interpretation of Aleph #21 do you incline? Does it befit a medieval manuscript? Or do you incline toward cracks intersecting to give the illusion of an ox skull?
Let me know in the comment section below.
Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!
My next post is “The ‘ARWR’ Debate.”
I look forward to continuing with you there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.
To support this work, you can donate below. If so, thank you for the encouragement.
Next post: The “ARWR“ Debate
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
