Blog

Objective Analysis I

[Ebal, twenty-nine of thirty-two]

Here I consider the last portion of Haughwout’s material fact. It is that a Hebrew of 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 portion 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 give push back below the yellow.

Lastly, I announce my findings beneath the purple banner.

Not a Hebrew from before 1250 B. C.

The artifact’s nature and provenance deride Stripling’s assessments for the following reasons

• Anachronistic Defixio

He lnks his curse tablet with a culture alien to that of the early Hebrews. A late bronze age Hebrew defixio would be an approximate seven hundred year anachronism.

• Tortured letter and word sequence

Stripling et. al. use an improbably contorted letter sequence to justify their Hebrew words and chiastic interpretation.

Look at the letter and word direction of travel shown here. Such strains credibility.

• 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 something entirely different from a defixio. To them it is a clasp for fastening a strand of decorative string or maybe a hair barrette. The lead’s markings they theorize are mere decorations not particularly associated with any culture. Their origin could be Canaanite, Phoenician, Moabite, or another people native or sojourning in the ancient Middle East.

Additionally, Prof. Amhai Mazar suggests a fishing weight. This idea fits well a translations of the tablet’s “TMT” letters, Figure 7’s #18, 19, and 20. In Mesopotamian this means “depth”– logical parlance for fishing gear.

• Faulty Dating

Contrary to Stripling’s suggestions, neither the lead nor pottery analysis reliably date the tablet.

I. Lead analysis

The lead analysis alone does not link the tablet to the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age. The Labrion mine exported to the Middle East for about a millennium. This object thus could have arrived in Israel/Palestine centuries later than that ascribed by Stripling.

II. Pottery Dating

Pottery also cannot accurately date this artifact. 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 the stratification levels were intermingled.

One thus cannot reliably distinguish a ground level Roman object from a late bronze age item.

For these reasons pottery and lead analysis cannot be used to properly date this artifact.

There should therefore be no genuine dispute about the material fact portion here. That is that a Hebrew of the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age did not inscribed the tablet. Neither lead nor pottery analysis provide reliable dating for this object. Also better theories exists for the artifact’s nature and provenance than a defixio that is a seven hundred year anachronism. More plausible are either a hair piece, a net sinker, or a theatre ticket.

Hebrew of 1250 B. C. +

Here is a point by point response to the the above:

• An Anachronistic Defixio?

Stripling’s article made no anachronistic connection between the tablet and Greco-Roman culture.

At the time that Frankie Snyder announced finding the lead object in her tray, she recognized it as a defixio. So did Stripling. Yet, he also realized the Greco-Roman inconsistency. He knew that this presented a dating dilemma. Fourth century B. C. forward he knew did not match Zertal’s careful pottery analysis for the Ebal site.

Later, the tomographic scans revealed the tablet’s proto-alphabetic script. For Stripling this anchored the tablet to Middle Eastern inhabitants of the Late Bronze to Early Iron Ages or earlier, not to the Greco-Roman period.

Henceforth, he used the term “defixio” to aid understanding about it as a sealed tablet containing a curse. He, however, was not ascribing any Greco-Roman cultural connection.

“Defixio” accurately communicated to fellow archaeologist much about the tablet. They envisioned its small size, lead composition, association with a subterranean feature, and being the bearer of a sealed curse.

But throughout he also highlighted this defixio’s contrast with the Greco-Roman variant. He noted the general, non individualistic nature of the curse. He emphasized it being Late Bronze Age Hebrew as opposed to third to fourth century B. C. Greco-Roman. For this he noted a precedent from Hebrew culture. That is the Book of Job’s reference to writing on lead.

Again, Stripling ultimately ascribed no anachronistic Greco-Roman connection of his defixio. Nor did his article do so.

• Letter and Word Sequence

Haughwout complains bitterly about the boustrophedon nature of Galil’s proposed text. This he claims to be too extreme. Yet, reconsider the map of the tablet’s proposed letter and word order here. It starts logically at the bottom left, proceeds by in large up that 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 tucking into the middle. The logic is as if one is coiling a rope.

One can reasonably assume that the tablet’s message is solely for God. That is because it was found within an altar’s waste pile. Thus, the author had no concern about his message being understood by man. Yet, contrary to Haughwout’s insistence the sequence is largely 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, such one would more expect on a mountain top far from a fishery. The Sea of Galilee is fifty-seven miles (ninety-one kilometers) from Mt. Ebal.

Yet, both seem starkly incongruous with the tablet’s vibe. I can think of a lot of writing that I might desire on such things. “God’s death curse” would not be one–not for a fishing net and especially not for a woman’s hair.

Note here 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 Mesopotamian word for “depth”. Contrarily, throughout his article he argues that the tablet has neither proto-alphabetic letters nor words.

If the letters could be proto-alphabetic representing a Mesopotamian word–“depth”, they could also spell in Hebrew, the word–“You will die!”

• Lead and Pottery Dating?

Admittedly, Haughwout makes some valid points here. Yes, neither the lead origin nor the pottery analysis make iron clad dating assessments. But Stripling never alleged such.

They do, however, as Stripling contends support, rather than establish, an earlier 1400 to 1200 B. C. plus date.

However, it really is not necessary to decide this. For Haughwout himself concedes the issue.

How? He acknowledges that the presence of proto-alphabetic script would signal a Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age date, i. e. 1400 to 1200 B. C.

Also, he acknowledges that the letters “TMT”, Figure 7 # 18, 19, and 20, are proto-alphabetic.

• A Roman soldier’s theatre ticket

Come on now! 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.

1250 + Finding

I find that Haughwout failed to carry his burden on this last portion 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 reasonably conclude that the tablet’s letter and word sequencing presents a reasonable boustrophedon offering. It is one not only appropriate for the eyes of God. It is also one reasonable to the eyes of man.

Third, affiliating the artifact with the biblical Mountain of Curses seems reasonable compared with proposed options classifying it as a fishing sinker, a hair adornment, or a theatre ticket. The former better fits the provenance and location.

Fourth, part of Haughwout’s criticisms do more to strengthen rather than negate Stripling’s Hebrew dating conclusions.

Here I again refer to this: He acknowledges that the presence of proto-alphabetic letters would signal a Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age date, i.e. 1400 to 1200 B. C. Yet, later, he acknowledges that “TMT”, Figure 7 #’s 18, 19 and 20, is possibly proto-alphabetic Mesopotamian.

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?

This I announce in the next post.

Next post: “My Adjudication”

.