My beach towel’s Egyptian hieroglyphic immulates proto-alphabetic “Yod”.Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
Here is what they look like:
An angled arm symbolizes “Yod”. Picture it as running from above the elbow to the thumb and thence to the pointer finger. See Figure 7’s #11, at Table 5, (1 a and b).
Importantly, study, too,Table 10, photo # 3. The Stripling team argues that this depicts the bottom bulge of this “Yod”.
Do you agree?
If you do, this has major consequences–ones to which even Haughwout, the sceptic, agrees. It is this: mirror bulges on the bottom reflect something actually existing on the inner surface of the tablet. The object does not result from a photographic lighting or shading issue. It also nullifies the object resulting from a computer glitch.
That finishes my review of the two words which Stripling declares compel his conclusions–“ARWR” and “YHW.”
What did I tell you? That was not hard.
However, again, read these sections a couple of times. Let the photos really sink in.
With the following post I complete an initial dive into the tablet’s photos. There I look at a word and two other letters relevant to Haughwout’s arguments.
Later, however, l tread deeper into the words and symbols mentioned above as I evaluate Haughwout’s analysis.
We can now declare a wrap on our initial alphabet and word canvas.
Consider our script count comprises only seven unique letters–“Aleph”, “He”, “Mem”, “Resh”, “Taw”, “Waw”, and “Yod”.
At first tackling ancient inscriptions of thirty-five hundred years ago possibly intimidated. In retrospect you likely see them as relatively straight forward.
As an aside, consider that in short order first graders learn all 26 letters of our script. Plus they quickly master a corral of words from their readers. What a wonder!
I now aim at capturing relevant arguments of the numerous critics of Stripling’s article.
Yet, I discuss the work of only one, Mark S. Haughwout, a respected Hebrew scholar and instructor at the Indian Bible College, Flagstaff, Arizona.
There are a couple of reasons for this.
For one he does an admirable job of not only giving his thoughts but of summarizing the main views of other prominent voices.
The second reason is that his publisher, Heritage Science, the same publisher as Stripling’s article, is free and easily accessible online.
This of course makes a lay person’s review of his work feasible.
Before considering the body of Haughwout’s article, let us spend some time with his title–“Mt. Ebal curse tablet? A refutation of the claims regarding the so called Mt. Ebal curse tablet.”
A key word is “refutation”.
Merriam-Webster defines this as “the act or process of refuting”.
For the root word, “refute”, it gives these alternative definitions:
: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
: to deny the truth or accuracy of
The meaning of each differ markedly.
Which did Haughwout intend?
Does Haughwout prove Stripling’s claims false or does he simply deny their truth?
To underscore the vast difference in these ideas consider Matthew 9:5 NIV.
Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?
Matthew 9:5 NIV
Of course, the answer is the former.
Similarly, simply denying the truth of Stripling’s claims is one thing. Actually proving that they are wrong is another.
So which is it? How can we know?
By happenstance, Haughwout answers himself. His conclusion 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.”
By using the word “refutation” in his title Haughwout thus declares that he has disproved Stripling’s claims, not that he merely disputes them.
We thus perceive that Haughwout’s and Stripllng’s ideas are decidedly in opposition.
One alleges that the Ebal tablet depicts something profoundly important.
The other claims to have refuted, i. e. disproved, those contentions. Essentially he declares, “Currently this tablet presents nothing of consequence.”
One says, “Take notice world! This artifact likely challenges scholarly history.”
The other declares that he has shown otherwise. Thus scholarly communities and serious journalistic ones should largely ignore the claims about this artifact.
Esteemed professionals back each. A respected scientific journal published both. Peer reviewers vetted both.
How do we resolve this tension?
Whose arguments should carry the day?
For assistance I turn to an American court procedure.
The last post sets up our story’s tension. Stripling claims that his artifact challenges scholarly world history. Haughwout counters that he has disproved such.
How do we resolve this? I suggested turning to an instrument of the American courts.
That instrument is summary judgment. Via it courts adjudicate civil cases absent a trial.
The procedure aids in balancing justice and fair play and the need for judicial economy.
Here I use it for comparison and contrast.
How does summary judgment work? Imagine yourself as the plaintiff seeking redress for a perceived wrong. At some point in pre-trial proceedings the opposing party files a motion for summary judgment. Both parties brief their respective positions. Afterward, the court issues its decision.
If the court agrees with the opposition and grants summary judgment in full against you, you lose, end stop! Barring an appeal–a costly, time consuming, and dicy affair, your case is caput. In effect, it has been deemed unworthy of further consideration. You get no opportunity for a trial.
Comparable Consequences
With this I draw a parallel with Haughwout’s “refutation”. By analogy he claims an iron clad case for in effect scholarly and journalistic summary judgment.
Henceforth, Stripling’s positions, Haughwout suggests, qualify in effect only for grocery aisle tabloid offerings of the latest Big Foot and Freddie Mercury sightings.
With Haughwout a sizable contingent of authors and professional commentators seem to agree.
This a quick online search confirms. Google “Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet”. There you soon encounter offerings such as these:
“New Studies Debunk Controversial Biblical ‘Curse Tablet’ from Mt. Ebal”;1
“New academic articles heap fresh doubt on Mount Ebal ‘curse tablet’ interpretation;”2
“Academic article on controversial 3,200 year-old ‘curse tablet fails to sway experts;”3
“Hook, Line, and Sinker: Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet Debunked?;”4
“Don’t Be Fooled by the Mount Ebal Curse Tablet.” 5
“The Mt. Ebal “inscription” is actually a Folding Lead Clasp.”6
Delve deeper into these and you encounter statements from scholarly professionals like these:
“This article is basically a text-book case of the Rorschach Test, and the authors of this article have projected upon a piece of lead the things they want it to say.” So advises Prof. Christopher Rollston, an expert in Northwest Semitic languages and the chair of the Department of Classical and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at George Washington University7;
“The images made it clear that there are no discernible letters on this piece of crumpled lead,” said Rollston. “And again, the authors’ drawing of the letters bears no real similarity to what is present in the images;”8
“One big nothingburger”, says Dr. Robert Cargill, as cited previously, a Bible scholar and professor at the University of Iowa.9
Articles and opinions pro and con are, of course, appropriate. The scholarly process thrives on such.
The scholarly world, however, should also honor justice and fair play.
The question is whether such really operates here.
Not only has Haughwout figuratively filed a motion for summary judgment in the court of scholarly and public opinion against Stripling’s claims.
Apparently too that court has in large part granted the motion. In other words, among much of the scholarly and journalistic community the Stripling claims are considered caput.
Real consequences ensue from this figurative adjudication.
This includes loss of possible funding. Maybe it quells a future academic / scientific endeavor by Stripling. For example, it could entail the loss of permit requests for further Mt. Ebal excavations.
Questions arise:
Is this figurative adjudication just?
Should Haughwout’s claim meet some minimal standard?
Is not too much at stake to allow otherwise?
In sum, how do we arrive at an appropriate fair answer to all of these?”
Contrasting summary judgment and scholarly “refutation” suggests one.
Melanie Lidman, Academic article on controversial 3,200 -year old ‘curse tablet’ fails to sway experts, The Times of Israel, 14 May 2023, paragraph 18, https://www.timesofisrael.com/ academic-article-on-controversial-3200-year-old-curse-tablet-fails-to-sway-experts/, (7 October 2024). ↩︎
In our last post we observed similarities between Haughwout’s “Refutation” and summary judgment.
Today we explore an important contrast.
Resultantly, we answer a question previously pondered: How do we determine if Haughwout’s declaration is just?
The contrast is this: an authoritative guideline directs a court’s decision on summary judgment. On the other hand, no guide exists for evaluating Haughwout’s “refutation” claim.
For a U. S. Federal District Court that authoritarian guide is Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In part it reads:
“…The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.”
One is that the U. S. Supreme Court, the authority behind Rule 56, recognizes summary judgment as a severe pronouncement requiring a standard.
Second, before issuing such, a lower federal court must record its compliance with Rule 56’s specific elements of justice and fair play.
What does this suggest for our situation?
It is that we should do likewise.
We should adopt a standard for “refutation” that elicits some sense of justice and fair play and apply it in writing.
Our standard, of course, will lack the authority of the U. S. Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, there is value in stating some standard. Others can then understand how we arrived at our decision. From thence they will be better able to direct their criticism or approval.
In the last post I concluded that Haughwout’s scholarly refutation should satisfy a standard. Such I discerned might resemble Federal Code of Civil Procedure Article 56.
Here I propose such a standard clothed in a hypothetical.
Why the dressing?
This supplies context.
Rule 56 has hefty substance behind it, the United States’ highest court and an abundance of case law.
My standard has none, other than an appeal to fair play and justice.
The hypothetical supplies at least imaginary substance and authority which makes the standard easier to conceive.
My proposed rule and its hypothetical context is as follows:
The world’s first mega trillionaire founded the Sovereign Isles of Scholarandria. At first, he bought the main isle. Later, he acquired a score of surrounding ones.
The isles he populated with thinkers and tinkerers of the highest order. Monthly stipends with accommodations for families he provided.
In time, he established a renowned university.
The isles prospered growing in wealth and population.
Eventually, they achieved nationhood.
That brings us to the heart of this tale.
Journals at Scholarandrian University have published two competing peer review articles. These discuss a tablet found on a Samaritan mountain. Quite a stir these instigate among the Isle’s archaeological, epigraphical, historical, and religious communities..
The first article by Dr. S. Ling makes fantastic claims about this artifact.
The second by M. S. Wout alleges to have refuted, i. e. disproved those claims.
Several influential Scholarandian citizens believe Dr. Ling’s position worthy of regard, even action.
A vocal delegation of citizenry, however, especially from the archaeological, religious, and epigraphic communities, vehemently denounce Ling’s claims as “silly”, “a nothingburger”, “a classic case of pareidolia.”
Most of each camp, nevertheless, dismiss the ruckus as simply normal academia at work.
That was until a recent event unfolded in the Isles’ news media.
An extremely rich governor of one of Scholarandria’s southern most isles approached the Prime Minister with this proposition:
“I will fund an archaeological expedition to the Samaritan mountain.
There I aim to complete excavation of its controversial archaeological site. I ensure employment of the brightest minds in all fields necessary for a successful expedition. At their disposal will be the latest and finest scientific tools and processes.”
He asked the PM only this:
“Use your clout with the United Nations to achieve these two concessions:
an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel to allow this excavation; and
a contingent of armed U. N. peace keepers to protect the archaeological work.”
Subsequently, the nightly news aired word of the PM / Governor meeting.
Resultantly, the previous ruckus intensified exponentially.
One side emphasized that an excavation risks the tenuous peace of a war torn region.
Acknowledging such, others nevertheless stressed the necessity of immediate excavation to protect historically precious artifacts–ones that potentially clarify how mankind’s distant past clarifies the present and future.
Others declare that the evidence supporting Dr. Ling’s claims fails to meet the simplest tests of credibility.
Alarmed about political ramifications, the PM seeks the advice of the Isle’s Commission on Scholarship (SCOS).
Subsequently, that Commission issued this press release:
“The Scholarandrian Commission on Scholarship (SCOS) finds the consternation brewing over the Samaritan Mountain issue refreshing. Why? This tumult reflects Scholarandrians’ active engagement in matters of intellectual concern.
Another aspect of this tumult we also find gratifying. We note that our SCOS Code contains longstanding provisions that address a core issue of this controversy.
The parties involved we thus encourage to avail the provisions found in SCOS Code Provision 56.”
The press release continued by highlighting pertinent sections of that provision:
Prov. 56
“Prologue: Many times in the past a university peer review journal has published an academic paper. Then later it or another publishes an article allegedly refuting, i. e.. debunking, the previous article. In other words, the succeeding article’s language manifests a conscious disproval rather than a denial of the original paper’s accuracy.
For these situations the Isle’s Commission on Scholarship implements this provision:
Be it known that the Commission finds that:
When one peer review article of this Isle alleges to debunk another previously issued article, significant negative consequences can adhere for the author of the alleged debunked article. That being so we provide the following optional remedy:
The original article’s author can file with the Commission a formal challenge to debate the merits of the disproval.
The cost of this will be three Scholarandrian crypto coins (about $100,000.00)
This challenge the original journal and the debunking one must publish in their next edition.
From the date of that publication the author of the “debunking” article shall have sixty days to respond.
To do so they must:
Deposit three Scholarandrian crypto coins with the Commission in order to “Call” the disproval challenge; or
Absent issuing the “Call”, allow the 60 days to elapse. This will trigger his/ her article’s publisher printing a retraction, one that must effectively convert the article from a “disproval” to “a challenge of accuracy.”
Note that owing to the largesse of the Governor, Dr. Ling almost immediately posts his three coins.
Mr. Wout timely follows suit.
The news release continued:
Prov. 56 (Continued)
On challenge and acceptance being issued the Commission will appoint an independent arbiter to resolve the conflict.
Guess who they appoint? That is right! It is me!
As such, I have already overseen building the record, briefing, etc. as Prov. 56 requires.
That material the journal articles here and here encapsulate.
Additionally, Prov. 56 mandates:
Prov. 56 (Continued)
The arbiter’s written decision must:
Include a list of the matter’s material facts, that is, controverted facts that are indispensable to the disproving article’s claims; and
Grant the “disproval” if a reasonable persons could not genuinely dispute the material fact(s); and
Deny the “disproval”, if otherwise.
SCOS Code Prov. 56 concludes:
Prov. 56 (Continued)
The party to whom the arbiter renders a favorable decision shall receive four Scholarandian crypto coins, the Commission one, and the arbiter one.
I wish!
Real World Application
We return now from my fantasy island.
Nevertheless, I endorse the Scholarandrian Code’s wisdom. It approximates the summary justice article of U. S. Code of Civil Procedure Article 56. It doing so it provides an objective measure for balancing academic economy with fair play.
Thus, I intend to follow it in dealing with our real world Stripling v. Haughwout.
In the last post we returned from the hypothetical to the real world.
Yet, I have decided to embrace SCOS Code Provision 56. It I will apply for resolving our Stripling v. Haughwout issues.
But this is important! I am not suggesting that the scientific community adopt a similar Scholarandrian governmental rule. Without other safeguards such might be subject to abuse by an authoritarian regime. Of this legislative drafters must remain always cognizant. Particularly now they must consider any rule in the hands of Donald Trump and his obsequiously corrupt MAGA acolytes.
What I am suggesting is that the general public use this rule as consumers of scientific and academic information. The scientific and journalistic communities may declare that debate on a topic with issues similar to here has reached its culmination. The general public can then apply this standard to better determine if that is warranted.
I therefore use Provision 56 of the Scholarandrian Code in that spirit. Has the debate over the Curse Table reached a pinnacle? Does the end result rest with scholars such as Haughwout determining that there is nothing to see here?
Applying our standard can help us decide.
Accordingly, I first need to determine the material fact(s) of Haughwout’s claim’s. What are his contested, indispensable ones?
Is there an “Aleph”?
Photo by Jesu00fas Esteban San Josu00e9 on Pexels.com
Such I determine to be as follows:
Haughwout insists that at least one of the following statements are true:
The tablet does not contain proto-alphabetic script denoting the words “ARWR”–“cursed” and “YHW”–“Yahweh”, the Hebrew name for God; or
A Hebrew of before 1250 B. C. did not inscribed the tablet.
We test here the first part of Haughwout’s material fact. That is whether the tablet contains proto-alphabetic letters.
To evaluate this I take these steps:
First I outline Haughwout’s position. Find this below the magenta banner.
Against it, I give push back. This you find below the yellow.
Lastly, I announce my findings below the purple banner.
No Letters
When Haughwout began to study the photos of Stripling’s article, he had an initial favorable impression. The top right corner indeed seemed to show several proto-alphabetic characters. Namely these were Teh, Meh, He, Teh and Aleph–five in total, respectively #’s 18, 19, 12, 20, and 21 of Figure 7.
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 a number of crack lines commencing from the tablet’s edge to intersect with the character.
Prominent were the two cracks that he deduced had over time created the “Ox’s” horns. (See here.)
Resultantly, this Aleph’s favorable status crumbled. He deduced it only the chance product of crack lines. No longer was it an exquisite inscription. It now presented a coincidental aberration with grotesquely proportioned horns. This disqualified it as a man-made proto-alphabetic letter.1
Disillusionment followed also for the other four likely script candidates. All he concluded as being mere happenstance cracks, scratches, and dents in the lead.
Some of the primary reasons for this were these:
First, he realized how small these characters were, ranging form .01 to .05 mm. The minimalist crack, scratch, or dent could replicate them; and
Photos of bulges on the tablet’s bottom (Table 10) failed to impress Haughwout. These Stripling had presented as negative proofs of inside characters. They too, Haughwout concluded, likely resulted from cracks, scratches and dents.
Haughwout thus finally surmised that his most favored of the tablet’s characters presented major existential problems. Doubly so this applied to the remainder.
Pushback on Haughwout’s Improbable Letters
I. Lovely Aleph
Haughwout notes that initially “Aleph, ” Figure 7, # 21 presented for him as a gorgeous proto-alphabetic inscription.
On this I agree.
Note its beauty! It satisfies the eye as an elegant calligraphy beginning a chapter of a medieval manuscript.
Haughwout, however, finds what he considers a fatal flaw–crack lines intersecting the horns.
These he concludes reveal the inscription to be nothing more than happenstance cracks, scratches, and dents. (See again Haughwout’s illustration.)
But Dr. Pieter van der Veens of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, one of Stripling’s team epigraphers and an expert in ancient Near Eastern languages and inscriptions, gives a plausible explanation. He suggests that yes there are crack lines emanating from the tablet’s edge. But likely the force of the stylus so close to that edge caused this.
In fact, along the tablet’s top this “Aleph” is among the closest.2
Note too that Haughwout’s drawing appears on a photo that poorly focuses this Aleph.”
On this clearer image you can see that the cracks do not intersect the horn tips smoothly and directly. On both horns there is a transition from the points where the aesthetically pleasing horns end and the apparent cracks intersect.
Both of the aesthetic horns are darker, wider and likely deeper.
Plus, at the intersection points the direction of the cracks deviate on both, but on one more pronounced than the other.
The above emphasizes the likelihood of an author having beautifully crafted his letter only to have time mar it with the imperfectly connecting cracks.
II. Tiny Letters
Haughwout also complains about many of the letters’ small sizes. Here the simple explanation is that the author had a small space with which to work. Plus, in that small space he had a serious message to convey–one not intended for human eyes but only for God.
Fortunately, though, they are indeed visible to man.
III. Bottom Bulges
Further, Haughwout apparently scoffs at the idea of negatives on the tablet’s bottom , “Outer B”, replicating inner tablet letters.
This evidence surely deserves less flippant appraisal.
Consider these examples:
Compare “He” of Figure 7’s, #3 and Table 3, (4 a and b) with Table 10, photo #2. This image I have designated “Dancing ‘He’”. Why? Notice that his arms and legs, seemingly in motion, occupy different levels. Nevertheless, the positive of the inner tablet and the negative of the tablet’s bottom mirror.
See, the first “Resh” in the word “ARWR”, at Figure 7’s #26 and Table 8, (2a & b). Compare it with the bottom bulge shown at Table 10, #8. Notice how they coincide. The positive inner image slants right.The bulge mirrors to the left.
Yet even faint mirroring reflections have an important ramification, one that Haughwout recognizes. He notes,”The reality is a dent on one side of a 0.4 mm thick piece of lead will of course appear on the opposite side.” Further he continues that this proves that the marks “on the inside are indeed there and are not x-ray anomalies.” In other words even where the mirroring images are faint, they prove that what is faintly depicted is indeed there. It is not some fluke produced by x-ray or photographic lightings or shadows.3
Several factors limit the possibility of these being the result of mere happenstance cracks, scratches, or dents.
Note that of the three, a dent seems most likely. Usually such one associates with sufficient downward force to cause an opposing bulge.
Nevertheless, Haughwout’s contention that a happenstance dent as opposed to a purposeful one caused by an inscriber’s stylus must account for the following:
First, the tablet was closed thus protecting the inner tablet from further damage.
Second, the tablet’s top,” Outer A,” does not have marks corresponding to these negatives. Only our inner tablet marks do.
Third, therefore, the force, possibly by a stylus, was likely applied before the tablet was closed.
Fourth, this closing likely occurred during the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age II– the era of proto-alphabetic writing.
Fifth, the act of closing was likely done purposefully by a human. Likely too that was done to conceal and protect a message hidden within.
All of the above amount to justifications for a reasonable person genuinely disputing this portion of the material fact addressed here. That is that the tablet does not reveals proto-alphabetic script.
This portion of Haughwout’s material fact thus fails to support his refutation claim.
Improbable Letter Finding
The evidence shows that there is a genuine dispute about Haughwout’s proposition here. In other words, a reasonable person can genuinely dispute the claim that there are no proto-alphabetic letters on the tablet.
Despite conceding that Figure 7’s #’s 18, 19, 12, 20, and 21 represent proto-alphabetic forms, Haughwout nevertheless concludes that only coincidental cracks and dents formed them.
Yet, a reasonable person could genuinely counter that:
“Lovely Aleph”, Figure 7, # 21, is likely a scribe’s work marred somewhat by incongruous intersecting cracks radiating from the nearby tablet edge.
The fact that the letters are small is of little consequence. My wedding band has my wife’s name etched inside it. They are comparably as tiny but no less visible, real and meaningful.
The bottom negatives legitimately argue of man-made proto-alphabetic script inside the tablet.
Therefore, Haughwout’s improbable letter arguments do not support his “refutation” claim. Against this part of Stripling’s first material fact he has failed to satisfy our objective test. That is that a reasonable person could not genuinely dispute the absence of proto-alphabetic letters on the tablet.
Might another of his arguments fare better? Next up we will examine the first of his “Improbable word” criticisms. That is against “ARWR”–“You are Cursed!”
Next post: “ARWR?”
Haughwoout, M. S. Mt. Ebal curse tablet? A refutation of the claims regarding the so called Mt. Ebal curse tablet, Herit Sci 12, 70 (2024). htts://doi.org/101186/s40494-023-01130-z, paragraph 16. ↩︎
Here we consider the second part of the 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 portion of Haughwout’s arguments cannot contribute to the success of his position. It cannot support his “refutation”.
I ponder this again in these steps:
First, I outline Haughwout’s position. Find this below the magenta banner.
Against that I give push back. This you find below the yellow.
Lastly, I announce my findings below the purple banner.
“ARWR” Is Not a Word
Haughwout announces that one of the best ways to distinguish a coincidental mark resulting from cracks, scratches, or dents from an actual letter is this: A letter will usually coalesce with other letters to form a word. Coincidental marks likely will not.
Six times on the inner tablet Galil identified “ARWR”, the alleged ancient equivalent of the modern Hebrew word pronounced “ARUR” meaning “cursed”.
Haughwout counters that “ARWR” is not a word that a Hebrew of 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”.
Much later, around the ninth century B. C., Hebrew writers began using occasional consonants to replicate vowels. Particularly this was rare within a word rather at the end until the eight century B. C.
This use of “Waw” to mimic the “U” vowel inside of “ARWR” is thus inappropriate. It is an anachronism of four to six hundred years.
One therefore cannot reasonably argue for “ARWR” forming a word. One should consider that combination as happenstance cracks, scratches, or dents.
“ARWR” Pushback
For simplicity we examine here only one of the six “ARWR” iterations that Galil identified. It is Figure 7’s #25-28. It also is the “ARWR” which we earlier discussed in Post #13.
Haughwout avers that happenstance dents caused our “ARWR” and the rest of the inner tablet characters.
For this he states a main reason, one underlying his disillusionment with the tablet almost from the beginning. It is this: That one should not accept marks as human writing unless they coalesce with other characters to form words. “ARWR” is not a Hebrew word that a person of the proto-alphabetic era would have written, he concludes. Therefore, those marks do not qualify as letters.
In essence, the reason that Haughwout declares that “ARWR” is not a word of the thirteenth century B. C. is that 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 the understood “U” vowel sound within a word until four to six hundred years later.
The next section offers contradictory observations.:
A reasonable person can genuinely dispute that “ARWR” is not proto-alphabetic Hebrew..
Here are several reasons why:
Sparse Corpus
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 take away? It is that currently you can only put limited faith in assumptions about the proto-alphabetic corpus. We just have too few examples.
Rules for both syntax and vowel markers should be deemed speculative and tenuous at best.
Exceptions litter languages
While this hardly needs illustration, it does merit remembering.
Exceptions are normal in language. The same should be expected of ancient proto-alphabetic.
Phonetic Sense
Modern Hebrew pronounces the word for “cursed” as “ARUR”. Likely the ancients spoke it similarly.
So, imagine an ancient inscriber faced with 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!”?
More likely the inscriber would have said, “I like this. I am going to stick with it.”
Maybe they did not decided to do this with other words. Maybe they did not realize that this is something that they could do with other words.
They just decide to go with “ARWR” as a better way to sound out their word for “cursed”.
“ARWR”, a Time Traveler?(The strongest reply!)
What could better evidence that the “ARWR” spelling traveled from the remote proto-alphabetic era through to a subsequent age?
Obvious evidence would include similar examples in both epochs.
Our tablet provides evidence for the proto-alphabetic era’s “ARWR” spelling.
Compare this with a Jerusalem stone inscription allegedly marking the tomb of Shebnayahu, King Hezekiah’s royal steward about whom Isaiah prophesied. That eight century B. C. inscriber similarly used a consonant to represent the “U” vowel sound of the Hebrew “cursed”.
On both the spelling is essentially the same. Each uses four letters with a consonant substituting for the “U” sound.
Evidently between our tablet and the Shebnayahu stone no other Hebrew variant other than our “AR(consonant)R” is known. Specifically, in the interim between these two examples there is no example of “ARR” having been written for the word “cursed”.
Nevertheless, Haughwout insists that a “book spelling” of “ARR” would have constrained our inscriber.
On what grounds do I suggest that there are no examples of the “ARR” spelling for the word cursed between the Late Bronze Age and the eighth century B.C.? The reason is that Haughwout does not cite such. Surely he would have to support his argument had he known of one.
It thus remains reasonable for a person to determine that the “AR(consonant)R” spelling remained constant between the two ages.
Therefore, for this reason and the others above, a reasonable person could genuinely dispute that the tablet does not exhibit the Hebrew word for “cursed”–“ARWR”.
Therefore this second part of the Haughwput’s material fact fails to support his refutation” claim.
Improbable “ARWR” Finding
The evidence shows that there is a genuine dispute about the material fact portion scrutinized here. In other words, a reasonable person could genuinely dispute that the ancient proto-alphabetic word for “cursed” does not appears on the tablet.
These are the reasons:
Bookish grammatical and use norms for our proto-alphabetic text one should deem speculative and tenuous. The corpus of Hebrew late Bronze Age literature is just too sparse.
Further, the “AR(consonant)R” spelling of the tablet matches the spelling of an eight century B. C. example. Haughwout, on the other hand, produces no intervening examples of the Hebrew for “cursed” being spelled “ARR”.
This material fact portion thus fails to support Haughwout’s refutation claim.
Next up we consider Haughwout’s arguments regarding the alleged Supreme name, “YHW”.
With Upper Yahweh Haughwout perceives two primary problems. He disputes the letter count. He also disparages visibility.
These problems, Haughwout concludes, disqualify this “YHW”as either a word or as 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.
“He” raises a red flag!
Stripling counters that three letters conform with an Egyptian spelling of the Hebrew name. 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 letters actually correspond to the four phonetic letters of “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
Nevertheless, two of the letters which Galil purports for “YHW” present other problems.
The first letter “Yod”, Figure 7’s # 11, he maintains is simply not there.
Additionally, the last letter “Waw”, Figure 7’s # 13, is “highly speculative”.
Haughwout’s Conclusion
As previously discussed, one of the best ways to distinguish coincidental marks from actual letters is this: The later will coalesce to form a word but not the former.
“YHW” has an insufficient number of proposed letters to form the name of God.
Additionally, some of its proposed letters are indistinguishable.
Consequently, the above problems disqualify “YHW” from being a word or even proto-alphabetic letters.
“YHW” Pushback
Haughwout raises two objections. First, he objects to Yahweh’s three letter spelling. Second, he observes that one of its proposed letters, the “Yod”, is invisible while another, the “Waw”, is speculative.
Separately below I address these.
Yahweh of Three Letters?
There is a reasonable explanation for the three or four letter conundrum.
In the proto-alphabetic era as previously discussed, the written script was largely consonantal. In other words, vowels were usually not designated.
Thus a proto-alphabetic scribe would have written “YHW” even though a vowel sound, likely an “eh” or an “ah” followed the “Waw”. This was simply understood without any designation.
At a later time 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 altar the name of God. They simply modified the spelling by adding the letter “H” to act as a vowel at the end of the name. This thereby ensured the capture of the originally intended but previously only understood pronunciation.
This explanation harmonizes the ancient three letters with the subsequent 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 indeed faint. Yet, in the composite photos of Figure 4 I nevertheless distinguish it under “Taw” and above the leg of “He.”
A reasonable person could genuinely dispute Haughwout’s contention that the tablet does not display God’s name. Justifications include:
There is a reasonable explanation for why the proto-alphabetic era’s “YHW” equates with subsequent era’s “YHWH”. It is that later scribes added the “H” at the end of many words to ensure that previously understood vowel sounds were not lost. Those vowel sounds were endings of “ah” and “eh” with the “H” sound largely silent.
The “Yod” of our “YHW” is faint, but distinguishable. Further, the bottom bulge reinforces the presence of this letter.
A child would recognize this “Yahweh’s” “He”;
Picasso would embrace its “Waw”.
The third portion of Haughwout’s material fact thus fails.
Thus far we have determined this: That a reasonable person could genuinely dispute the absence of proto-alphabetic letters and the words “ARWR” and “YHW”. Therefore these portions of Haughwout’s material fact do not support his “refutation” claim.
Our next post considers the remaining material fact portion. There I discuss whether the tablet’s inscriber was a Hebrew of before 1250 B. C.
captivatingtwists.com 