Over the past few weeks, I’ve received several emails asking me, “Hey! What do you think of this tablet that has the name ‘Yahweh’ on it? They found it on Mt. Ebal. It sounds like it’s an amazingly important find!!” Truth be told, whatever the excavators of the Mount Ebal Dump Salvage Project (aka MEDS Project) found is interesting. It appears to have writing on it, and it’s always exciting when there’s writing linked to early Iron Age Israel (ca. 1200-1000 BCE). But when that writing appears to be proto-alphabetic, which is what the MEDS team is claiming, things are ratcheted up several more notches.
However, the excavators made some pretty bold claims in a press conference that announced the find. In fact, for a few days after the fact, it was all biblical studies people could talk about on Twitter. So, it behooves us to do our diligence and evaluate these critically.
Now, before I get into what was said at this press conference, I want to be very clear on something. The interpretation of Mt. Ebal is something that is steeped in controversy. I have written about this in Pondering the Spade (Wipf and Stock, 2019). While I’m in the camp that understands the site to have been a cultic one (against a watchtower or even an Iron Age barbeque), not everyone holds to that interpretation. In many places, the excavators assume that seeing Mt. Ebal as a place of worship is a foregone conclusion. It’s not. So, just be aware that there’s a very robust and technical conversation that is lurking behind the scenes.
On March 25, 2022, the Associates of Biblical Research announced the finding of a “curse tablet” that purportedly contained a 40-letter, chiastic pronouncement that twice invoked the name “Yahweh” (You can actually watch the entire press conference here, but you will need to carve out an hour or so to watch the whole thing.). In addition, the team went onto to make claims about the composition of the biblical text and the dating of the exodus. In other words, the team saw further implications arising from their understanding of this text. All in all, if the claims made by Scott Stripling, Gershon Galil, Pieter Gert van der Veen, and company are true, then the discussions surrounding the development of Israelite religion, Israelite presence in Canaan, and ancient Israelite religious practices have just been significantly changed.
Now, in full disclosure, a quick Google search of the topic will reveal copious opinions on these claims, ranging from acceptance to mockery. And when you consider the responses from social media and every arm-chair biblical scholar, the atmosphere reaches a whole other level of crazy. All this to say, if I am honest, there is hardly anything novel or particularly insightful in what follows. Rather, these comments are merely my advice to you on how you should go forming your own conclusions on this topic.
- Observation 1: The team is still writing the article that will apparently fully reveal their findings
In their defense, the team was honest. They were very clear early in the press conference that they were still writing the article that would eventually detail their findings and conclusions. However, there were frustrating comments periodically made that effectively said, “Well, you’ll have to stay tuned!” Perhaps more importantly, to have the press conference before the academic community has had a chance to consider the data is akin to putting the chart before the horse. Common sense tells us that this is not the best way to go about this.
As I listened, I thought of the time in recent memory when another groundbreaking study for biblical studies was presented for public consumption. A few years ago, members of Leon Levy Expedition presented the first DNA profile of the Philistines to the public. In this instance, the press release happened concurrently with publication of their academic, peer-reviewed article, which was published in Science Advances. Indeed, there was talk among the Leon Levy Expedition about findings before the press release and publication, but it was done informally. In the instance of the so-called curse tablet from Mt. Ebal, the official public release occurred not only before publication, but before the article was written and accepted for publication!
- Observation 2: There was very little technical information divulged
In my mind, this was the most frustrating thing about the press conference. Indeed, we were told things like the tablet’s size (2 cm x 2 cm), that it was an inscribed inscription (written with a stylus), and that the inscription appeared on a folded, lead medium whose raw material originated from a particular region in Greece. And we were fortunate enough to be given their translation of the 40-letter chiastic poetic pronouncement. However, we were only shown three of the letters, the ones which supposedly represent the Divine Name. And we were only given the most general information regarding the details how the object was scanned and read. For instance, there was repeated reference to “tomographic scans” and that the University of Prague that administered the testing. Yet there were no technical details given. This is particularly important because this folded tablet apparently had writing on the inside as well! So, how in the world were the tomographic scans able to read a text on the inside of folded lead without unfolding it?
From a linguistic standpoint, the lack of detail is problematic on at least two fronts. First, this is ancient writing and it’s apparently really small. Ancient writing is notoriously difficult to read for a variety of reasons, but in this instance, there are apparently 40 letters written on something that measures only 4 cm2. Second, whatever is written on this tablet is written in a proto-alphabetic script. Consequently, take the difficulty of reading really small, ancient writing on a very small lead tablet and multiple it by about 5. Not only are readers are contending with barely visible symbols, but when it comes to a proto-alphabetic script, you can throw any assumptions about orthographic standardization out the window.
Now, this is not to say that I doubt that we have the technology to do what the team is claiming to do. Actually, it’s quite the opposite. There’s a well-documented case of using complicated computer scans to read a burnt scroll from E-Gedi without actually unrolling it. Also, researchers were able to read barely visible letters inscribed on silver in the case of the Ketef Hinnom Amulets (I also talk about this in Pondering the Spade). The difference in these cases is that the publications and press releases gave us the technical details on how their work was accomplished.
I hope you can see the problems here. It’s really not good practice to present what you believe to be the results of a very technical and delicate study without also showing your audience just how you came to those conclusions. Any “you-will-just-have-to-trust-us” practice is not a good model to use.
- Observation 3: Even if we can accept their conclusions, do their conclusions about the timeline for the exodus and the compositional history of the OT naturally follow?
One of the more interesting elements of this press-conference came during the question-and-answer session, for it was here where the boldness of the team was taken to another level. In particular, two claims were made. First, this tablet further strengthens arguments for an early date of the Exodus. Second, this tablet strengthens arguments that the Old Testament was composed as a text very early…earlier than “most scholars will accept.”
In both instances, these are incredibly complicated conversations. Therefore, to imply that this piece of evidence dramatically tilts the debates is, in my view, presumptuous. Moreover, even if I accept that this tablet has the Divine Name, I am just not clear how this tablet weighs into either conversation, let along go so far to determine the outcome. Again, we are bumping up against the problem of a lack of detail. Comments were made, conflicting positions were dismissed, and books were pitched. That’s pretty much it.
If I am being honest with myself, I want them to be right, at least on the reading of the text and the inclusion of the Divine Name. However, the way that this all unfolded just strikes a bad chord with me. Even the tone of the press conference didn’t sit well with me. The presentation pitted the conclusions of the excavation team as if they were a company of one against the entire scholarly community. So, I’ll just say it. While my heart is with them, the academic in me needs to be convinced.
Now, I get it. Stripling and Co. are often the brunt of jokes within the scholarly community for their positions on certain matters. And they believe that this find will give them the ammunition they need to vindicate their positions. However, how this press-conference unfolded will do them no favors. So perhaps the enduring quality of March 25, 2022 will be how to not to go public with a potentially paradigm shifting find.