Stripling’s Article

Photo Study I

[Ebal, seventeen of thirty]

Heritage Science finally published its article about the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet on 12 May 2023. Since Stripling’s press conference, twelve months had passed; since the tablet’s discovery, three and a half years.

Much of the world, of course, breathlessly anticipated one feature.

Likely, you also think, “Show us the photos, please!”

Before I turn to those, however, there are four important observations to make.

This post is part of my memorandum opposing specific views of scholars such as Professor Christopher Rollston. This esteemed epigraphist of George Washington University declares that the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet bears no discernible script. Instead, I maintain that it presents compelling written evidence. This, in turn, is sufficient to warrant posthaste excavation of the proposed Joshua’s Altar, the discovery site of the Curse Tablet.

This is the seventeenth post of my memorandum.

To read my entire effort from the beginning, click here.

Otherwise, proceed below

Observation One

The article’s conclusion states the core of the Stripling team’s argument about the Curse Tablet. With it, they assault the documentary hypothesis.

The article’s body states facts and ideas considered. Only with the conclusion, however, does Stripling dig in his boots. There, he states what about the tablet potentially belies the idea that Moses could not have authored the Torah.

The article, for example, credits team member Professor Gershon Galil, Director of the Institute of Biblical and Ancient History at the University of Haifa, with deciphering most of the tablet’s interior face. Gallil’s premises the article elucidates. It cites his increased letter count from the forty declared at the press conference to the forty-eight at publication. Consequently, it also acknowledges his slightly modified chiasmus interpretation.

Yet, note this crucial point: The article’s conclusion leaves many, if not most, of Galil’s premises orphaned. In other words, its conclusion does not specifically embrace these premises. His accounting of the number of inner tablet letters it neither adopts nor rejects. The same applies to his full chiasmus interpretation.

Instead, it concludes that the tablet’s inscription challenges history for truncated reasons. Those include:

• The tablet displays in proto-alphabetic script the word “YHW”, the name of the Hebrew God;
• From this we know that a Hebrew inscribed the tablet sometime before 1250 B. C.;
• Additionally, the tablet contains the word “ARWR” or “cursed”;
• These tablet words recall events described in Deuteronomy and The Book of Joshua;
• Resultantly, this artifact challenges the historical paradigm.¹

A more conservative approach, however, Stripling adopted.

Following publication, note that Galil and Stripling amicably ended their team affiliation.

What are the consequences for our study?

For us, Stripling has simplified our original question, “Is there anything to see here?”

Stripling’s team answers with a resounding, “Yes, see the two words on the inside of this artifact–the ancient Hebrew equivalents of ‘cursed’ and ‘Yahweh’”. “They alone with the tablet’s ambiance challenge world history!”

Consequently, that makes our photo study easier.

From Stripling’s perspective, we can focus primarily on photos relevant to two words. The other words of Galil’s chiasmus, while important for conjecture, are not crucial to Stripling’s conclusion.

Observation Two

Our purpose is not only to review the Stripling article and its photos. We also seek to study an article that attempts to refute Stripling’s case.

That article considers the alleged Hebrew words for “cursed” and “Yahweh”.

Additionally, it makes relevant arguments involving two individual tablet characters and the Hebrew word for “You will die!” I also include these in our study.

Observation Three

In the proto-alphabetic era, writing at times traced a boustrophedon path. Then there was no standardized script. Instead, letters tracked as oxen plow. They followed left to right, up to down, diagonally, etc. Consider, for example, how an inexperienced pre-teen might push a lawnmower over your yard, or someone older, inebriated.

Observation Four

Many of these inscriptions are very small. How small? Some could fit inside a wedding band or even on the side of a penny.

Such concludes my pre-photo study observations.

Photos!

Ready now for some tomographic scans?

“Cursed! “, our next post declares.

Still ready?

Until then, here are some questions: What aspects of early writing likely took the longest to standardize? Who most likely prompted or enforced such standardizations?

Let me know below in “comments”.

Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!

The next post examines an “ARWR” scan.

I look forward to continuing with you there.

If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.

If you wish to support this work, you can do so in the donation section below. Such is a great encouragement!

Next post: “ARWR,” Cursed!

1. Stripling, S., Galil, G., Kumpova, I. et al. “You are Cursed by the God YHW:” an early Hebrew inscription from Mt. Ebal. Herit Sci 11, 105 (2023), paragraph 71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-023-00920-9 ↩︎
2. Id. at paragraph 72. ↩︎