We look now at a new word and two solo letters relevant to a critic’s arguments.
Here, I introduce them somewhat superficially. When I discuss that scholar’s views, I delve deeper.
This is my twentieth post arguing that the proposed Joshua’s Altar and the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet deserve a chance to prove what they might be. To start the journey from its beginning, click here. Otherwise, proceed ahead.
We can now declare a wrap on our initial canvas of letters and words.
Consider that our script count comprises only seven unique letters–“Aleph”, “He”, “Mem”, “Resh”, “Taw”, “Waw”, and “Yod”.
At first, tackling ancient inscriptions you possibly found intimidating. In retrospect, you likely see them as relatively straightforward.
As an aside, consider that in short order, first graders learn all 26 letters of our alphabet. Plus, they quickly master a corral of words from their readers. What a wonder!
Many influential scholars criticize Stripling’s claims about the Curse Table. A significant number consider this prominent archaeologist’s Heritage Science article largely debunked.
Here, I consolidate my discussion of those criticisms. This I do by focusing on the work of Mark S. Haughwout, a respected Hebrew scholar at the Indian Bible College, Flagstaff, Arizona.
This is my twenty-first post, contending that the proposed Joshua’s Altar and the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet deserve a chance to prove what they might be. To start the journey from its beginning, click here. Otherwise, read on.
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 layperson’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?
Our next posts explore this.
Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!
The next post, the second discussing voices opposing Stripling’s take on the Curse Tablet, I entitle: “Between WWN, Sun, and Earth.”
Join me there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.
If you wish to support this work, you can do so in the donation section below. Such is a great encouragement!
The last post sets up tension. Stripling alleges that his artifact challenges the scholarly world’s history. Haughwout counters that he has disproved such.
Henceforth, Stripling’s positions, Haughwout suggests, qualify in effect only for grocery-aisle tabloid offerings of the latest Big Foot and Freddie Mercury sightings.
This is my twenty-second post asserting that the proposed Joshua’s Altar and the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet deserve a chance to prove what they might be. To start the journey from its beginning, click here. Otherwise, continue on.
With Haughwout, a sizable contingent of authors and professional commentators 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 textbook 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 desire to make an appropriate and wise decision on this matter
The question is whether such really operates here given the following factors:
A fully excavated altar site could yield other evidence regarding Stripling’s claims; and
There are competing interest in the “refutation” determination.
Considering these, how do we arrive at an appropriately wise answer?”
The next post suggests a way forward!
Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!
The next post, I entitle: “A Plan”.
Continue with me there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.
If you wish to support this work, you can do so in the donation section below. Such is really encouraging!
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 the beginning, I argued that the world’s authorities should proceed posthaste to excavate Mt. Ebal’s Joshua’s Altar.
This I concluded not necessarily because I find Stripling’s tablet claims emphatically true.
It is because the evidence sufficiently supports further excavation.
But by what measure did I arrive at that conclusion?
This is my twenty-third post, submitting that the proposed Joshua’s Altar and the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet deserve a chance to prove what they might be. To start the journey from its beginning, click here. Otherwise, forge ahead.
Largely, my conclusion derives from applying a procedural rule of U. S. federal courts, that is, for summary judgment—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 56–Title 28 of the U.S. Code.
Mark sues Sally in federal court for negligence involving a Louisiana car accident. Sally, a Michigan resident, asks the court for summary judgment. With her motion, she attaches an affidavit stating that at the time of the wreck, she was in Quebec.
By granting Sally’s motion, a court could dismiss Mark’s case without him having the opportunity of a trial.
The U.S. Supreme Court recognized, however, that this outcome raises due process issues. On the other hand, it also recognized that it must safeguard the trial process from being overburdened by frivolous claims.
With Rule 56, the Supreme Court balances these competing interests. It authorizes granting Sally’s motion, given certain conditions. These include, in part:
Sally proves that no genuine dispute exists regarding the facts relevant to her claim;
The ruling court views the evidence in the light most favorable to Mark; and
That court states on the record the reasons for its decision.
How does this relate to our situation? This matter also requires a balancing of competing interests.
On one hand, academics and scientists must maintain the trust of the institutional and financial benefactors that their support is not wasted on frivolous pursuits.
On the other hand, there is a need to preserve potentially precious evidence.
A balance thus is necessary.
Again, one side advocates for protecting academic and scientific support. They wish to insulate that from being diluted by outrageous notions. This underlies their desire to expose frivolous claims.
The other side clamors for safeguarding historical evidence. Here, the loss of evidence could fundamentally affect how mankind views this world. Plus, such is potentially available for the first time in millennia and may not be again accessible for a thousand years or more.
Haughwout’s “refutation” potentially endangers this precious evidence. His alleged disproval of Stripling’s claims bolsters the idea that further excavation at Joshua’s Altar holds little promise of yielding meaningful results.
‘Given this, excavation is unlikely to proceed, especially given the adverse regional realities. This, in turn, exposes Joshua’s Altar to potential harm. This I have previously discussed in Post 16, Troubled Waters, Local Perils. The bottom line is that the longer potential evidence lies exposed on Mt. Ebal, the greater the opportunity for it being accidentally or intentionally harmed or destroyed.
Achieving a fair balance of both of these interests, I argue, best serves mankind.
Therefore, Haughwout’s refutation claim should balance these interests. This he can do by meeting a standard similar to summary judgment.
Accordingly, Haughwout should show that no genuine dispute exists regarding the facts relevant to his claim, i.e., that there is no genuine dispute regarding his material facts. This burden falls on him as the one claiming the “refutation/disproval.”
That translates into him proving that a reasonable person could not disagree:
That the tablet does not contain proto-alphabetic script denoting the words “ARWR”–“cursed” and “YHW”–“Yahweh”, the Hebrew name for God; and
That a Hebrew did not inscribe the tablet before 1250 B. C.
The next four posts evaluate these statements. Each respectively focuses on:
Does the tablet contain proto-alphabetic letters?;
Does it display the word “ARWR”?;
Does it reveal “YHW” as the name of God?; and
Did a Hebrew before 1250 B. C. inscribe it?
After those discussions, I give my written judgment on Haughwout’s “refutation”.
My conclusion for this memorandum follows that.
Let us get after it.
Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!
The next post I entitle: “Letters?”
Join me there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.
If you wish to support this work, you can do so in the donation section below. Such is really encouraging!
We test here the first part of Haughwout’s material fact. It 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 push back. You find this below the yellow.
Lastly, I announce my findings below the purple banner.
This is my twenty-fourth post insisting that the proposed Joshua’s Altar and the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet deserve a chance to prove what they might be. To start the journey from its beginning, click here. Otherwise, drive on.
No Letters
When Haughwout began studying the photos of Stripling’s article, he had an initial favorable impression. The top right corner of the composite 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 some crack lines running from the tablet’s edge to intersect with the character.
Is there an “Aleph”?
Photo by Jesu00fas Esteban San Josu00e9 on Pexels.com
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 that it was 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 were 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 from .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 favored 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 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 Haughwout’s illustration again.)
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. Both horns transition at 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 deviates.
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 the letters’ small sizes. Here, the simple explanation is that the author had little space 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. The inside 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 in 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 lighting 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, one associates such 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 that of 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 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, namely, that the tablet does not reveal 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 argue for 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, namely, regarding “ARWR”–“You are Cursed!”
Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!
The next post I simply entitle: “ARWR?”
I look forward to continuing with you there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.
If you wish to support this work, you can do so in the donation section below. Such is really encouraging!
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 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 push back. You find this below the yellow.
Lastly, I announce my findings below the purple banner.
This is my twenty-fifth post, maintaining that the proposed Joshua’s Altar and the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet deserve a chance to prove what they might be. To start the journey from its beginning, click here. Otherwise, proceed ahead.
“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.
Galil identified “ARWR” six times on the inner tablet. This is 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 than at the end until the eighth century B. C.
This use of “Waw” to mimic the “U” vowel inside of “ARWR” is thus inappropriate. It is a four to six-hundred-year anachronism.
One, therefore, cannot reasonably argue for “ARWR” forming a word. One should consider that a combination of cracks, scratches, or dents.
“ARWR” Pushback
For simplicity, we examine here only one of the six “ARWR” iterations Galil identified. It is Figure 7’s #25-28. It is the “ARWR” 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 takeaway? It is that you can only put limited faith in assumptions about the proto-alphabetic corpus. We now 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 scribe 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 decide to do this with other words. Maybe they did not realize that they could do this.
They just decided 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 “ARWR” spelling in the proto-alphabetic era.
Compare this with a Jerusalem stone inscription allegedly marking the tomb of Shebnayahu, King Hezekiah’s royal steward, about whom Isaiah prophesied. That scribe similarly used a consonant to represent the “U” vowel sound of the Hebrew “cursed” in the eighth century B. C.
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, between these two examples, there are no instances of “ARR” having been written for the word “cursed”.
Nevertheless, Haughwout insists that a “book spelling” of “ARR” would have constrained our scribe.
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. That, surely, he would have done 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, a reasonable person could genuinely dispute that the tablet does not exhibit the Hebrew word for “cursed.”
Thus, this second part of Haughwout’s material fact fails to support his refutation” claim.
ARWR” Finding
The evidence shows 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 appear on the tablet.
These are the reasons:
Bookish grammatical and usage norms for our proto-alphabetic text are 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 that of an example from the eighth century B. C. 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”.
Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!
The next post I simply entitle: “YHW?”
I look forward to continuing with you there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.
If you wish to support this work, you can do so in the donation section below. Such is really encouraging!
The third discussion of Haughwout’s material fact ensues 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 fact portion does not support his “refutation”.
This issue I examine 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.
Lastly, I announce my findings beneath the purple banner.
This is my twenty-sixth post advising that the proposed Joshua’s Altar and the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet deserve a chance to prove what they might be. To start the journey from its beginning, click here. Otherwise, proceed on.
“YHW” Is Not a Word
Twice on the inner tablet, Galil finds the name for the Hebrew God.
Upper Yahweh Haughwout perceives having 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 to 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 that Galil purports to spell “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 latter 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.
Again, in the proto-alphabetic era, 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 alter 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. They 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, namely, 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 the 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 were “ah” and “eh” endings, 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 scribe was a Hebrew before 1250 B. C.
Let us get to it!
Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!
The next post I simply 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”.
If you wish to support this work, you can do so in the donation section below. Such is really encouraging!
Here, I consider the last portion of Haughwout’s material fact. He alleges 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 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 push back below the yellow.
Lastly, I announce my findings beneath the purple banner.
This is my twenty-seventh post advocating that the proposed Joshua’s Altar and the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet deserve a chance to prove what they might be. To start the journey from its beginning, click here. Otherwise, read on.
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 links his curse tablet with a culture alien to that of the early Hebrews. A late Bronze Age Hebrew defixio would be an anachronism of approximately seven hundred years.
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 other than 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 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.
Faulty Dating
Contrary to Stripling’s suggestions, neither the lead nor pottery analysis reliably dates 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 lead 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
Also, pottery 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 here, that is, that a Hebrew of the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age did not inscribe the tablet. Neither lead nor pottery analysis provides reliable dating for this object. Also, better theories exist for the artifact’s nature and provenance than a defixio, especially one that is a seven-hundred-year anachronism. More plausible are either a hairpiece, 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.
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 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, not to the Greco-Roman period.
Henceforth, he used the term “defixio” as an aid to understanding. The defixio label communicated that he had a sealed tablet containing a curse. He, however, was not ascribing any Greco-Roman cultural connection.
“Defixio” thus told fellow archaeologists much about the tablet. They envisioned its small size, lead composition, association with a subterranean feature, and its potentially bearing 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 that it was Late Bronze Age Hebrew rather than Greco-Roman. For this, he noted a precedent from Hebrew culture, namely, 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. The wording’s direction of travel, 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 mostly 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 in tucking into the middle. The logic is as if one is coiling a rope.
One can reasonably assume that because the tablet was found within an altar’s waste pile, its message was intended solely for God. 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.
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 expect this more 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. 1
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 makes 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.2
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 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 does 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 1250 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?
I will announce this in the next post.
Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!
The next post I simply entitle: “My Adjudication”
I look forward to continuing with you there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.
If you wish to support this work, you can do so in the donation section below. Such is really encouraging!
Next post: “My Adjudication”
Haughwout, M.S. Mt. Ebal curse tablet? A refutation of the claims regarding the so called Mt. Ebal curse tablet. Herit Sci12, 70 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-023-01130-z, paragraph 58. ↩︎
Has Haughwout refuted Stripling’s claims? Here is my decision!
This is my twenty-eighth post urging that the proposed Joshua’s Altar and the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet deserve a chance to prove what they might be. To start the journey from its beginning, click here. Otherwise, continue on.
On that, his conclusion doubles down. There he 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.”
Thus, Haughwout emphatically declares that he disproved Stripling’s contentions.
In this evaluation, I have measured against a standard similar to one set out by the U.S. Supreme Court. That standard governs summary judgment in our federal system.
My similar standard is this: To decide in favor of Haughwout, I must find that a reasonable person could not genuinely dispute his claim’s material fact(s). I must deny Haughwout’s “disproval” if I find otherwise.
Further, I condensed Haughwout’s claim to a singular material fact. It is that: At least one of the following statements is true:
The tablet does not contain proto-alphabetic script, which denotes the words “ARWR”–“cursed” and “YHW”–“Yahweh”, the Hebrew name for God; or
A Hebrew of before 1250 B. C. did not inscribe the tablet.
Ultimately, I find that a reasonable person could genuinely dispute this statement.
Haughwout thus failed in his endeavor.
Here is a list of points I find support my adjudication:
The difference between three and four letter Yahweh has a reasonable explanation. Later, scribes added the “Heh” to capture the previously understood vowel ending, in this case, an “eh” sound.
Use of “Wah” in place of the vowel in “ARWR” is reasonably attributable to a smart scribe.
The substitution makes phonetic sense.
Also, the evidence suggests that this Late Bronze Age spelling persisted through to the eighth century B. C., Tomb of Shebnayahu, and beyond.
The crack lines of Aleph, Figure 7, #25, and Table 2, (3a and b) do not intersect directly with the horns. Thus, it is reasonable to deduce that the cracks intersect with a well-drawn figure.
Affiliating the artifact with the scriptural Mountain of Curses seems reasonable.
This is especially so when compared with proposed options classifying it as a net sinker, hair adornment, or theatre ticket.
The scriptural attribution better fits the provenance and location.
A reasonable person can see both the “Yah” and the “Wah” of Upper Yahweh. The “He” a child can see.
Further, that person could consider tiny letters consequential.
This, they could relate to other tiny inscriptions.
One example could be wedding ring inscriptions.
A reasonable person could determine the tablet’s boustrophedon track appropriate.
They could presume that the tablet message may have only been meant for the eyes of God.
But, nevertheless, its track also makes basic sense even to men.
Additionally, a reasonable person could determine that the tablet’s bottom bulges evidence of interior proto-alphabetic letters.
Furthermore, part of Haughwout’s criticisms do more to strengthen rather than negate Stripling’s baseline conclusions.
Again, he acknowledges that the presence of proto-alphabetic letters signals a Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age date, i.e., 1400 to 1200 B. C.
Despite the above, I conclude that Haughwout’s criticisms significantly advance scholarly debate about the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet. That includes the conclusions where I argue that he errs. Why? Such clearly stated, academically advanced reasonings as his engender a healthy scientific and scholarly quest for truth.
The stark exception is the claim of a “refutation”.
Why? His “refutation” pronouncement potentially harms science and scholarship. It can dishearten further investigation, quench funding pools, block excavation permits, and relax safety concerns for exigent evidence.
Such an announcement that falls short of an appropriate procedural standard, I perceive as a hindrance rather than an advance of the quest for truth.
As such, I decided to deny Haughwout’s “refutation” claim.
The Mt. Ebal Curse tablet exhibits compelling evidence–evidence not to be ignored but acted upon.
Its claims are not now immutable facts. More evidence is needed.
Yet, it deserves the ” compelling ” classification. It is not silly. It is not a “nothing burger”. It is not the stuff of pareidolia.
This is my twenty-ninth and concluding post arguing that the proposed Joshua’s Altar and the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet deserve a chance to prove what they might be. To start the journey from its beginning, click here. Otherwise, drive on.
To this conclusion, we traveled an epic journey. Beginning in the Late Bronze Age, eras trekked include the Greco-Roman, the days of Wellhausen, Adam Zertal’s enigmatic discovery, Frankie Syder’s find, the scourge of COVID-19, and Stripling’s saga.
Reaching this conclusion also encompassed scientific detective work plus the application of an objective legal measure.
But so what? What value does this endeavor derive?
The tablet possibly glimpses our ancient past. From thence, mankind can course correct as appropriate. Then we can best find our heading.
Examples abound of how people’s misunderstanding of history clouded their interpretation of the future. Think of the consequences of the Nazis’ misperceptions of their Germanic past or the bizarre interpretations that Vladimir Putin employs to “justify” his Ukrainian invasions.
On the other hand, we in the United States reap the benefits of our forefathers’ historical wisdom.
From antiquity, they perceived three powers of government. Thence, they embraced the need for them to be separately held.
Later, they embraced due process for all in our country. Its necessity they derived from Magna Carter and beyond. Thence, they perceived it as fundamental to our freedoms.
Similarly, we must embrace these gifts. Thus, we protect liberty.
Unfortunately, many in my country no longer venerate this inheritance. They envision the country’s past differently and therefore its future. Once cherished ideas are forgotten or ignored.
We need to wake up!
A similar warning the tablet story makes.
It is this: We have little hope of discerning wisdom from the past if we have no evidence of it.
We have seen that Mt. Ebal’s alleged Joshua’s Altar lies in a dangerous part of the world. There, it faces real threats.
If destroyed, its secrets cannot hope to guide our future.
This realization warrants an aggressive application of Churchill’s wisdom.
Responsible entities–private, national, and international–should immediately implement these measures:
Authorize and fund the safe and thorough, yet expedited, archaeological excavation of the Mt. Ebal altar site, including within both of its encompassing footprint structures;
Employ a policing force to guard the site 24/7 during the entirety of the above operation; and
Authorize and fund safe and thorough additional scientific and epigraphical analysis of the Curse Tablet to fully determine the nature of the inscriptions it harbors.
Why? Clarifying evidence potentially lies on Mt. Ebal, evidence of monumental importance.
Losing it would constitute a disaster of incomprehensible proportions.
Imagine the gut punch of bulldozers scrapping away incalculably precious historical evidence!
Consider, that:
In all the years since Zertal’s death, the small round altar most likely associated with Joshua has yet to be fully excavated; and
Other Curse Tablet offerings may yet be found there.
Justifications for vigilance and action abound.
In view of such, what might Churchill implore?
Surely it would be, “Do something now! Do not let this opportunity to glimpse the remote past become scattered dust. How then could it inform your future?”
For this reason, I have written the letters found afterwards in the supplemental materials. I addressed these to my congressional delegation. They argue for the immediate scholarly archaeological excavation and scientific analysis of Mt. Ebal’s proposed Joshua’s Altar and associated artifacts.
Of how these things might ultimately be accomplished, I do not pretend to fully visualize.
This involves a diplomatic component, the constituent parts of which extend beyond my and most others’ expertise.
A possible framework, however, may include some or all of the following:
Our State Department convinces Israel to give the Palestinian Authority(PA) concessions;
In return, the PA grants it a three to five year authorization for altar area excavations;
The PA expropriates the property as a cultural heritage site. For this, the U.S., Israel, or the U.N. affords appropriate due process compensation;
The agreement includes 24 hour Israeli Army or U. N. protection of the site during the excavation; and
The parties agree that artifacts discovered will belong to the Nation of Israel.
With these efforts, educational institutes and corporations may assist.
Again, the above implies nuance beyond my and most others’ expertise.
Yet, not knowing the exact levers that someone must pull does not mean we cannot act. For example, we can inform those at the levers that they need to pull them. Letters similar to mine, I thus encourage others to send.
Why? The tablet presents actionable evidence. Its assault on scholarly history is real. Yet, delay imperils evidence that may further validate that assault.
Final Thoughts
We thus arrive at the end of our Mount Ebal adventure.
Share with others what you have learned. Tell of the forceful narrative of which the Curse Tablet speaks.
Also, encourage those in authority to ensure the prompt excavation of Joshua’s Altar.
Then hopefully, the Curse Tablet can testify not just to a possibility but to an inescapable reality.
What truths past and future might this reality focus more clearly?
Philip found Nathanael and told him “We have found the One Moses wrote about in the Law, the One the prophets foretold–Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
captivatingtwists.com 