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!
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.”
Therefore this second part of the Haughwput’s material fact fails to support his refutation” claim.
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”.
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.
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.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 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.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 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 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?
This I announce in the next post.
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. ↩︎
captivatingtwists.com 