Pre-1250 B. C. Hebrew?

Dissecting the Arguments V

[Ebal, twenty-seven of thirty]

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. It is also the fifth 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.

Not a Hebrew from before 1250 B. C.

The artifact’s nature and provenance refute Stripling’s dating. This artifact was not inscribed in the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age. Here are reasons why:

Anachronistic Defixio

Stripling links his curse tablet with a culture alien to that of 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 so 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 lead’s markings, they theorize, are mere decorations. They are not particularly associated with any culture. Their origin could be Canaanite, Phoenician, or Moabite. Also, they could be 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

Contrary to Stripling’s suggestions, 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 or a late date source.

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. 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:

• Small size,
• Lead composition,
• Association with a subterranean feature, and
• That it may bear a sealed curse.

He, however, was not ascribing any Greco-Roman cultural connection.

Stripling contrasted this defixio with the Greco-Roman variant. For example, he noted the general, non-individualistic nature of the curse.

He emphasized that it was Hebrew, not Greco-Roman, for other reasons. These include:

• He pointed to the presence of the Hebrew words “ARWR” and “YHW.”
• He noted the Hebrew precedent in the Book of Job for writing on lead.

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 could list these reasons for disputing such:

• Stripling’s team found the tablet on Mt. Ebal, the mountain of Curses;
• That site could be Joshua’s Altar;
• Careful pottery dating places the altar to Joshua’s time;
• The altar site contained almost only Kosher animal fragments.
• Words on the tablet harmonized with the coinciding scriptural account;
• The word “YHW” on the tablet suggests a Hebrew author.
• etc.

Note here, also, the inconsistency of Haughwout’s argument supporting the net sinker theory. He suggests that the “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 the presence of proto-alphabetic script would signal 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 it 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.

• The presence of the proto-alphabetic letters “TMT”, and
• That this signals a Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age inscription.”

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 Adjudication.”

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 Adjudication“