The YHW Debate

The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet

Arguments III

[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 three steps. As before, I first outline Haughwout’s position. Find this below the magenta banner. Against that, I push back below the yellow. Third, I announce my findings under the purple banner.

“YHW” Is Not a Word

Twice on the inner tablet, Galil finds the name of 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. One finds there 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 usually 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 cover each point.

YHW v. YHWH

Ancient Hebrew lacked vowel markers.

A reasonable outcome resulted. This caused scribes problems. Sometimes they felt a vowel needed to be written somehow. Often, they were comfortable with that sound being understood.

The spellings of vowels thus resisted standardization. The tablet reflects this.

Haughwout, nevertheless, argues that strict rules governed ancient Hebrew vowels.

The corpus, however, is too slim to support that conclusion.

As we have seen, Haughwout argues that “ARWR” has too many letters. His problem is with the “Wah” representing a vowel within a word.

Here, he argues that “YHW” has too few. His problem is that “He” should represent a final vowel.

Haughwout also has problems with the word for “You”, “ATH”. Again the problem is with a vowel. The letter “He” should not represent the final vowel. (I have not discussed this word previously. The arguments about it I find duplicitous. They tend to overly complicate without adding meaningful substance.)

A reasonable conclusion is that ancient Hebrew scribes sometimes struggled with representing vowel sounds.

The tablet appropriately reflects this.

Haughwout, however, adds a twist to the word “YHW” against “YHWH”.

The word has strong religious significance. Therefore, scribes would have taken any spelling variation seriously. They would not have lightly accepted the change from three letters to four.

We know that later it had four letters. For Haughwout, that means it must always have had four.

This logic ignores another explanation. Three letters satisfied early scribes as communicating the understood final vowel. Later scribes worried that understanding was being lost. They added the “He” sound at the end to preserve the vowel. The “H” remained largely silent.

Thus, a proto-alphabetic scribe would have written “YHW”. They understood the final vowel without designation.

Later, scribes added an “H” to the end of words to capture the understood vowel sound. 2

The “H” remained silent. Thereafter, Hebrew speakers knew to voice only 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. They thereby ensured that they captured the intended pronunciation.

This explanation harmonizes the ancient three letters with the four used later.

This also harmonizes with the fourth Egyptian letter suggested by some scholars. In Moses’ time, a fourth letter, an “Aleph,” captured the final vowel. For the Hebrews, it remained understood.

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. A negative bulge hints at this letter’s presence.

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”.

Moreover, 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. They could dispute that the tablet does not display God’s name. The justifications include:

• Arguably, contemporary Egyptians wrote Yahweh with three symbols.
• If the Egyptians used four, it reflected a final vowel. Early Hebrews understood this vowel.
• The proto-alphabetic era’s “YHW” equals the later “YHWH”. Later scribes added the “h” at the end of many words to ensure that Hebrew did not lose the original vowel sounds. Those were “ah” and “eh” endings, with the “h” sound mostly silent.
• The “Yod” of our “YHW” is faint but distinguishable. Additionally, the bottom bulge reinforces its presence.
• A child would recognize this “Yahweh’s” “He”;
• Picasso would embrace its “Waw”.

The third part of Haughwout’s material fact thus fails.

A reasonable person could genuinely dispute these three things:

• The tablet does not contain proto-alphabetic letters;
• It does not depict the word “ARWR”; and
• It does not convey “YHW”, the name of God.

Thus, these parts of Haughwout’s material fact do not support his “refutation” claim.

Our next post examines another aspect of Haughwout’s material fact. Did a Hebrew inscribe the tablet before 1250 B.C.? Haughwout says, “No!”

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 it is not there?

Let me know in the “comments” below.

Next post: “Pre-1250 B.C. Hebrew?“

1. Associates for Biblical Research, YaHWeh Curse Tablet: A Tsunami from Mt. Ebal, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU5njOpRCHQ&t=85s, (40:20) 1 November 2024 ↩︎
2. Hebrew Alphabet Made Easy, Hei, Lesson Three, Line 16, https://www.hebrewpod101.com/lesson/hebrew-alphabet-made-easy-3-hei; and
   Lobliner, Jacob, The Story of H, paragraph 36, 2008, http://faculty.ce.berkeley.edu/coby/essays/h.htm ↩︎
3. Vowels in Hebrew, Lilmod Aleph Beth, https://lilmod-aleph-beth.com/vowels-in-hebrew/, The Mater Lectionis are consonants that function as vowels. paragraph five ↩︎