The YHW Debate

Dissecting the Arguments IV

[Ebal, twenty-six of thirty]

The third discussion of Haughwout’s material fact I undertake here. The question is this: Does the tablet contain “YHW”-the holy name?

Haughwout declares, “No”.

This, a reasonable person can not genuinely dispute. Otherwise, this part of that fact does not support his “refutation”.

I examine this 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. It is also the fourth to dissect arguments about it.

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 Word

Twice on the inner tablet, Galil finds the name for the Hebrew God.

For simplicity, I concentrate only on the Upper Yahweh of Figure 7’s #’s 11, 12, and 13.

Upper Yahweh Haughwout perceives having 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. There one finds a contemporary Late Bronze Age Egyptian inscription. It uses what some scholars contend is a three-letter form.

Haughwout minimizes the 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

Again, in the proto-alphabetic era, the written script was consonantal. In other words, vowels were usually not designated.

Thus, a proto-alphabetic scribe would have written “YHW”. This was despite a vowel sound followed at the end. This the ancient Hebrews understood without any designation.

Later, scribes added an “H” to the end of words to capture the previously understood vowel sound.¹

The “H” sound remained largely silent. Only the vowel, likely an “eh” or “ah,” was voiced.²

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 the capture of 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 van der Veen, both esteemed epigraphers, declare its presence.

I agree with Galil and Pieter Girt 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).

Look, additionally, at Table 10, photo # 3. This hints at this letter’s negative bulge.

Speculative “Waw”?

Haughwout concedes our “YHW’s stickman, 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:

• There is an explanation for why the proto-alphabetic era’s “YHW” equals the later “YHWH”. It is that later scribes added the “H” at the end of many words to ensure that the original vowel sounds were not lost. Those were “ah” and “eh” endings, with the “H” sound for the most part silent.
• The “Yod” of our “YHW” is faint, but distinguishable. Additionally, the bottom bulge reinforces the presence of this letter.
• A child would recognize this “Yahweh’s” “He”;
• Picasso would embrace its “Waw”.

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

Thus far, we have determined that a reasonable person could genuinely dispute three things. It is that the tablet does not contain proto-alphabetic letters. That it does not contain the words “ARWR”. It also does not contain “YHW”, the name of God. Thus, these parts of Haughwout’s material fact do not support his “refutation” claim.

Our next post considers the remaining material fact part. There, I discuss whether the tablet’s scribe was a Hebrew 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?

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?“

1. 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 ↩︎
2. 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 ↩︎