Tag: mace

Objective Analysis IV

[Ebal’s Plea, twenty-six of thirty]

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”.

About 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 give push back below the yellow.

Lastly, I announce my findings beneath the purple banner.

“YHW” Is Not a Word

Twice on the inner tablet Galil finds the name for the Hebrew God.

For simplicity, I concentrate only on the Upper Yahweh of Figure 7’s #’s 11, 12, and 13.

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.

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.”

See also Table 9, photo 2(a).

Look, additionally, at Table 10, photo # 3. This hints of this letter’s negative bulge.

Speculative “Waw”?

While Haughwout concedes our “YHW’s” stickman “He” (See Table 3 [1 a & b]), the “Waw” he characterizes as “highly speculative.”

Again, Galil and van Der Veen, the esteemed epigraphers, see it.

Yet, honestly, could Picasso himself have drawn a more convincing mace? (See Table 4, 1 (a and b)!)

“YHW” Finding

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.

Let us get to it!

Next post: “Pre-1250 B.C. Hebrew?”

1. Hebrew Alphabet Made Easy, Hei, Lesson Three, Line 16, https://www.hebrewpod101.com/lesson/hebrew-alphabet-made-easy-3-hei; and
   Lobliner, Jacob, The Story of H, paragraph 36, 2008, http://faculty.ce.berkeley.edu/coby/essays/h.htm ↩︎
2. Vowels in Hebrew, Lilmod Aleph Beth, https://lilmod-aleph-beth.com/vowels-in-hebrew/, The Mater Lectionis are consonants that function as vowels. paragraph five ↩︎