Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is scepticism justified?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is scepticism justified?

    I found two recent articles from Haaretz and The Times of Israel concerning a claim being made for discovering the oldest example of the proto-Hebraic text. The discovery is a lead tablet containing a formulaic curse or defixio. The artefact contains the tetragrammaton YHWH and was discovered at Mount Ebal. The writing, also known as Sinaitic or Canaanite script, dates to the late Bronze Age - placing it to around 1300-1200 BCE.

    If this artefact is entirely genuine then this would make the find the earliest such example to be uncovered in that region. The 2 x 2 cm item was found on a spoil heap from a previous 1980s dig and was discovered by the process of wet sifting.

    However, questions start to accumulate.
    • Is the curse actually Israelite as the team claims?
    • Why lead? Lead curse tablets are more usually associated with the classical period.
    • Why was a member of a nomadic tribe carrying lead?
    • From where did they get it? [The lead has been analysed and found to be consistent with ore from Greece and we know that trade in the Mediterranean at this period was widespread]
    • Was the lead accidentally discovered by some tribesperson?
    • Why is the team reluctant to release any clear images and scans of this inscription to permit other scholarly comment?
    • Why did the 1980s dig miss this item? Why was the spoil heap not sifted and re-sifted?
    • Is the discovery a little too convenient?

    And even if the item is entirely genuine what additional light does it actually shed on this group at this period? Claims that it shows the early Israelites were literate are somewhat over-extended.

    The two articles may be found here: https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/...bal-1.10696926

    And here:https://www.timesofisrael.com/archae...e-name-of-god/
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

  • #2
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    I found two recent articles from Haaretz and The Times of Israel concerning a claim being made for discovering the oldest example of the proto-Hebraic text. The discovery is a lead tablet containing a formulaic curse or defixio. The artefact contains the tetragrammaton YHWH and was discovered at Mount Ebal. The writing, also known as Sinaitic or Canaanite script, dates to the late Bronze Age - placing it to around 1300-1200 BCE.

    If this artefact is entirely genuine then this would make the find the earliest such example to be uncovered in that region. The 2 x 2 cm item was found on a spoil heap from a previous 1980s dig and was discovered by the process of wet sifting.

    However, questions start to accumulate.
    • Is the curse actually Israelite as the team claims?
    • Why lead? Lead curse tablets are more usually associated with the classical period.
    • Why was a member of a nomadic tribe carrying lead?
    • From where did they get it? [The lead has been analysed and found to be consistent with ore from Greece and we know that trade in the Mediterranean at this period was widespread]
    • Was the lead accidentally discovered by some tribesperson?
    • Why is the team reluctant to release any clear images and scans of this inscription to permit other scholarly comment?
    • Why did the 1980s dig miss this item? Why was the spoil heap not sifted and re-sifted?
    • Is the discovery a little too convenient?

    And even if the item is entirely genuine what additional light does it actually shed on this group at this period? Claims that it shows the early Israelites were literate are somewhat over-extended.

    The two articles may be found here: https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/...bal-1.10696926

    And here:https://www.timesofisrael.com/archae...e-name-of-god/
    I have been reading about this a bit as well.

    Some of your questions may never well be answered, such as those you ask in reference to the lead, although you seem to have answered a few yourself (if it is consistent with the type found in Greece and not locally, and trade was widespread, it seems unlikely a tribesman found it).

    The main reason I could see for not releasing detailed images that could be analyzed by others would likely be the same reason that the Dead Sea Scroll group was hesitant -- this is their discovery and they wanted to be the ones getting the first crack and resolving various questions.

    Not necessarily a professional approach, but definitely a human one.

    And as to why the 80s team missed it... FWICT, that sort of thing happens with small objects (this was 2cm or less than 1" per side) fairly commonly. Things get discovered by later teams. And not just in archaeology. The same with paleontology. Look at the Cambrian dated Burgess Shale in British Columbia for one example. The outcropping itself is relatively small and is scoured pretty much every year for over a hundred years -- but new discoveries are made there all the time that were "overlooked" previously. In fact, IIRC, an entire previously unnoticed outcropping of the deposit was recently discovered.

    In any case, it appears that the team used a different sifting method than was previously used. One was developed at the Temple Mount Sifting Project, so that in and by itself could explain why the second search found something that the first missed.

    Interestingly, Mount Ebal, where the "curse tablet" was uncovered, is the place of curses according to Deuteronomy 11:29.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post


      And even if the item is entirely genuine what additional light does it actually shed on this group at this period? Claims that it shows the early Israelites were literate are somewhat over-extended.
      I guess that depends on what you mean by "early Israelites"

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        I have been reading about this a bit as well.
        At present apart from various media reports there is little to read. I am awaiting some peer reviewed academic papers on this artefact.

        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Some of your questions may never well be answered, such as those you ask in reference to the lead, although you seem to have answered a few yourself (if it is consistent with the type found in Greece and not locally, and trade was widespread, it seems unlikely a tribesman found it).
        Why were nomadic desert tribes trading with Greek civilisations? And what were they trading in return?

        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        The main reason I could see for not releasing detailed images that could be analyzed by others would likely be the same reason that the Dead Sea Scroll group was hesitant -- this is their discovery and they wanted to be the ones getting the first crack and resolving various questions.
        The two discoveries are not on quite the same scale and bear in mind the mistakes made by de Vaux.

        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Not necessarily a professional approach, but definitely a human one.
        Their reluctance does raise questions.

        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        And as to why the 80s team missed it... FWICT, that sort of thing happens with small objects (this was 2cm or less than 1" per side) fairly commonly.
        Not in archaeological digs. All soil removed from sites is carefully sifted to recover items and mesh sizes are very small. One method is to put a 6.35 mm [one quarter inch] mesh sieve over a 3.17mm [one eighth inch] mesh sieve and sift through both.

        That this artefact was not found in a stratified layer but among such a spoil heap also raises questions.

        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Interestingly, Mount Ebal, where the "curse tablet" was uncovered, is the place of curses according to Deuteronomy 11:29.
        Indeed. What a remarkable discovery to be made on that particular site.

        I am always somewhat sceptical of those who engage in archaeology with [metaphorically] a spade in one hand and a bible in the other. Stripling's academic background also raises questions. His Ph.D was obtained from a somewhat dubious institution and his precise specialism in the vast field of archaeology is not mentioned.

        While he may be entirely innocent we know that forgeries are hardly unknown in that region of the world.

        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        I guess that depends on what you mean by "early Israelites"
        You do realise the time scales involved between the alleged dating of this artefact and the period discussed in the NYT article?

        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          At present apart from various media reports there is little to read. I am awaiting some peer reviewed academic papers on this artefact.

          Why were nomadic desert tribes trading with Greek civilisations?
          First, who says they were trading directly with them?

          Second, why wouldn't they be?

          We have recovered artefacts from the Stone Age that originated from great distances from where they originated. Why would this be some sort of huge mystery?

          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          And what were they trading in return?
          Pretty much what desert nomads traditionally have been trading for thousands of years -- food (particularly meat), animals, desert herbs, transportation and acting as escorts/guides through the area for a start.

          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          The two discoveries are not on quite the same scale and bear in mind the mistakes made by de Vaux.
          I didn't say they were, but rather used the Dead Sea Scrolls as an illustrative example of researchers jealously guarding what they are studying and being incredibly reluctant to share until they were finished.

          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          Their reluctance does raise questions.
          Indeed. And they are quite aware of that. IIRC, one of the news accounts, said they are preparing to submit a paper on their findings for peer review and, if so, that will likely answer many questions.

          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          Not in archaeological digs. All soil removed from sites is carefully sifted to recover items and mesh sizes are very small. One method is to put a 6.35 mm [one quarter inch] mesh sieve over a 3.17mm [one eighth inch] mesh sieve and sift through both.
          Really? Are you saying that nothing has ever been overlooked by one group of archaeologists only to be discovered by another? Archaeologists have been combing over Petra and the surrounding area for well over a century and yet recently discovered a nearby structure the size of Olympic swimming pool that had been repeatedly missed and they only recently discovered evidence for the presence of Nabataeans dating back to the second century B.C..

          There also seems to be a relatively steady stream of discoveries made at Stonehenge which is yet another site heavily worked for centuries and the same for Pompeii.

          And if you don't think that paleontological dig sites aren't meticulously examined, if you ever have the opportunity to see how much difference there is when a site goes from the location of a possible homicide because of some unidentified bones to a scientific dig site, you might change your mind.

          Finally, every source seemed to be making a big deal of the different sort of sifting technique they employed that has recently been developed.

          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          Indeed. What a remarkable discovery to be made on that particular site.
          Yeah the "coincidence" is astonishing. In any case, it does provide attestation of a sort to that description.

          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          I am always somewhat sceptical of those who engage in archaeology with [metaphorically] a spade in one hand and a bible in the other.
          The same could be said of anyone with any sort of ideological motivations. That's why the evidence should always be able to speak for itself.

          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          Stripling's academic background also raises questions. His Ph.D was obtained from a somewhat dubious institution and his precise specialism in the vast field of archaeology is not mentioned.
          He did his graduate studies at the University of Texas and Veritas International University was recently established but there doesn't seem anything "dubious" about it. In fact The Best Schools and Colleges gave it a pretty high ranking -- although that wasn't specifically about it's archaeology department.

          As for none of the articles mentioning any field of specialization, that would be the articles fault and not Stripling.

          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          While he may be entirely innocent we know that forgeries are hardly unknown in that region of the world.
          I doubt he is some gullible ignorant rube that you seek to portray him as.

          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          You do realise the time scales involved between the alleged dating of this artefact and the period discussed in the NYT article?
          You somehow managed to miss that I clearly stated: "that depends on what you mean by "early Israelites""
          Last edited by rogue06; 03-29-2022, 11:30 AM.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #6
            rogue06

            While trading is not out of the question it still leaves one wondering how a nomadic desert "Bedouin" tribe acquired lead. Perhaps it was the result of barter with some intermediary and considered a high status artefact. Short answer: we do not know. However, from the LiveScience site mentioned below it appears that with regard to this artefact "dating hasn't been verified".

            Your own examples do not concern spoil heaps from existing digs. Spoil heaps are regularly sifted.

            The tensions between the groups working on the Dead Sea Scrolls is another issue.

            Finally with regard to Dr Stripling. Further investigation from here tells me that at the time that was written he was working on his doctoral dissertation which was based on the Late Second Temple period remains at Khirbet el-Maqatir. This is at a somewhat later date than the alleged date of the artefact found in the West Bank. Is he a "Jack of all trades"?

            Furthermore, if Stripling actually said the following he is not being honest as the artefact was not found in a stratified layer.

            https://www.livescience.com/ancient-...t-early-hebrew
            The stratigraphy of the site — in other words, the dates of different layers of earth determined by archaeological excavations — suggest that the tablet dates to around 1200 B.C. at the very latest, and perhaps as early as 1400 B.C., Stripling said.


            As to his "ideological motivations", the following is evidence of his lack of impartiality and profound degree of preconceived bias in his attempts to prove his own theological suppositions.

            https://patternsofevidence.com/2019/...ias-stripling/
            I wrote The Trowel and the Truth to provide a resource for archaeology students and interested laymen which would empower them with evidence-based research on the consistency between the archaeological data and the biblical text. In short, my goal was to set the record straight concerning supposed errors in the Bible.

            After introducing biblical geography and chronology, I explore dozens of synchronisms which demonstrate the reliability of the Bible. I begin with geography and chronology because if we look in the wrong place or the wrong time, we are certain to find the wrong stuff. Such has been the case with the flawed 13th century B.C. exodus theory which is now the dominant view in academia. Biblical passages such as 1 Kings 6:1, Judges 11:26, and 1 Chronicles 6:33-37 establish the exodus and conquest in the 15th century B.C. and the archaeological evidence that I present confirms this date with a high degree of specificity.


            One is also left to ask, what precise archaeological evidence has he uncovered that supports his own speculations that the texts found in "[b]iblical passages such as 1 Kings 6:1, Judges 11:26, and 1 Chronicles 6:33-37 establish the exodus and conquest in the 15th century B.C."?
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              rogue06

              While trading is not out of the question it still leaves one wondering how a nomadic desert "Bedouin" tribe acquired lead. Perhaps it was the result of barter with some intermediary and considered a high status artefact. Short answer: we do not know. However, from the LiveScience site mentioned below it appears that with regard to this artefact "dating hasn't been verified".

              Your own examples do not concern spoil heaps from existing digs. Spoil heaps are regularly sifted.

              The tensions between the groups working on the Dead Sea Scrolls is another issue.

              Finally with regard to Dr Stripling. Further investigation from here tells me that at the time that was written he was working on his doctoral dissertation which was based on the Late Second Temple period remains at Khirbet el-Maqatir. This is at a somewhat later date than the alleged date of the artefact found in the West Bank. Is he a "Jack of all trades"?

              Furthermore, if Stripling actually said the following he is not being honest as the artefact was not found in a stratified layer.

              https://www.livescience.com/ancient-...t-early-hebrew
              The stratigraphy of the site — in other words, the dates of different layers of earth determined by archaeological excavations — suggest that the tablet dates to around 1200 B.C. at the very latest, and perhaps as early as 1400 B.C., Stripling said.


              As to his "ideological motivations", the following is evidence of his lack of impartiality and profound degree of preconceived bias in his attempts to prove his own theological suppositions.

              https://patternsofevidence.com/2019/...ias-stripling/
              I wrote The Trowel and the Truth to provide a resource for archaeology students and interested laymen which would empower them with evidence-based research on the consistency between the archaeological data and the biblical text. In short, my goal was to set the record straight concerning supposed errors in the Bible.

              After introducing biblical geography and chronology, I explore dozens of synchronisms which demonstrate the reliability of the Bible. I begin with geography and chronology because if we look in the wrong place or the wrong time, we are certain to find the wrong stuff. Such has been the case with the flawed 13th century B.C. exodus theory which is now the dominant view in academia. Biblical passages such as 1 Kings 6:1, Judges 11:26, and 1 Chronicles 6:33-37 establish the exodus and conquest in the 15th century B.C. and the archaeological evidence that I present confirms this date with a high degree of specificity.


              One is also left to ask, what precise archaeological evidence has he uncovered that supports his own speculations that the texts found in "[b]iblical passages such as 1 Kings 6:1, Judges 11:26, and 1 Chronicles 6:33-37 establish the exodus and conquest in the 15th century B.C."?
              There are always things we'll never know. Take a look at Ötzi, the remains of a Copper Age man found preserved in the ice of the Alps. He was carrying or wearing items that stretched from central Europe to north-central Italy. How he obtained them will forever be a mystery.

              The same goes for the Venus of Willendorf. While discovered in northeastern Austria, the rock from which it was carved from was not local and either originated from the other side of the Alps in the Lombardy region of Italy or possibly a thousand miles away in Ukraine (where similar carvings were uncovered). So what were Stone Age people doing with a distant chunk of oolitic limestone? We will likely never know, but not knowing does not mean it is therefore suspect.

              Your continuing fixation on how they obtained a piece of lead is strange to say the least.

              As for sifting, again you are ignoring the fact that Stripling employed a new method called "wet sifting" rather than the older dry sifting method. This might be the cause of discovering something previously missed. I'd assume this is an improved method or else it would not have been developed and employed at sites, and no need to do so if archaeologists thought that earlier methods never missed anything.

              Finally, this may come as a shock, but actual archaeologists work at numerous sites during their careers. And they don't necessarily remain hidebound, refusing to work on a site that isn't related to the thesis they wrote while in school. Seriously, do you imagine archaeologists suddenly stopping, packing up and leaving when they discover that a site dated from say the sixth century rather than the fifth?



              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Wet sifting is used to find very small objects such as tiny pieces of bone, shells, or seeds. The standard mesh sizes used for dry sifting would easily have revealed an item of lead 2 x 2 cm. That would suggest that either the 1980s dig was somewhat careless or that the spoil heap was later "salted"..

                As to your comment on "actual archaeologists" one does not usually find an archaeologist with expertise in aspects of European history in the 11th century CE leading a team working on an ancient site [for example in Greece] dating from the fourth century BCE.

                That is the same approximate time scale between the site Stripling worked on for his dissertation and the site where this alleged discovery was made.

                However, until the findings are published following peer review our exchanges are gaining us nothing.

                Until this artefact is agreed to be genuine in every respect I retain a degree of scepticism. As previously noted forgeries are not unknown in this region particularly when trying to "prove the Bible".
                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • #9
                  A very interesting response from March 26 by Christopher Rollston on this discovery. He raises some serious questions on the claims made by Stripling and Galil re the text, the wording, and the tetragrammaton. Rollston considers that many assumptions have been made by them and he is far from convinced of their readings. He too found the lack of any images being shown at the press conference somewhat unusual.


                  http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=949
                  Setting the Stage:

                  Some sensational claims were made in a press conference on March 24, 2022 about a small lead ‘inscription’ that is purported to hail from the Late Bronze Age, to be written in the Ancient Hebrew language, to consist of forty letters, to be full of curses (i.e., with the tri-literal root ’rr occurring ten times), and to twice mention Yahweh. And as part of these claims, it was asserted in the press conference that there are a lot of firsts for this inscription (e.g., oldest Hebrew inscription, earliest reference in a Hebrew text to Yahweh, etc.). (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrWTCgQZ_eA ).

                  These are some mighty sensational claims. However, sensational claims require sensational evidence, that is, evidence that is absolutely overwhelming and entirely compelling. And in this case, I would suggest that some methodological doubt is probably a very useful thing. Of course, this find does hail from Mount Ebal, the famous site which was excavated by Adam Zertal during the 1980s. Therefore, this find is interesting, and it is ostensibly important. But something else that is normally just as important is methodological caution regarding sensational conclusions! After all, dramatic claims have been so very common during recent years, and the end result is almost always the same: the dramatic and sensational claims crumble under the weight of scrutiny, and then more sober conclusions rise to the fore as the most compelling.

                  Some Further Details

                  Here are some of the basic facts. On March 24, 2022 at Lanier Theological Library (in Houston, Texas), Scott Stripling (Provost of The Bible Seminary in Katy, Texas; and the Director of Excavations for the Associates for Biblical Research at Khirbet el-Maqatir and Shiloh, Israel), along with Pieter van der Veen (Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz), and Gershon Galil (University of Haifa) held a press conference to announce the discovery and putative decipherment of a 2 cm x 2 cm folded lead inscription (nota bene: the inscription remains folded, that is, it has not been opened). According to Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen, the forty letters on the inside of this folded lead object are not discernible via the naked eye. However, via imaging that was conducted in Prague at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, they (i.e., van der Veen and Galil) believe that forty letters can be seen, that these letters can be read, and the words that result can be deciphered. Here is their translation: “Cursed, cursed, cursed – cursed by the God Yhw [Yahweh], You will die cursed. Cursed you will surely die. Cursed by Yhw – cursed, cursed, cursed.” Furthermore, these scholars contend that the script of this inscription is “Proto-Alphabetic” (it is perhaps useful to mention that a standard means of describing the alphabetic script at this time period would be Early Alphabetic or Proto-Canaanite, rather than “Proto-Alphabetic). Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen also state that there are some letters on the outside of this folded lead object, but they do not mention which letters or words they might be reading on the outside.

                  Significantly, this inscription was not found in a stratified context during excavations at “Mount Ebal.” Note that Adam Zertal directed the excavations at Mount Ebal in the 1980s, and he believed that he had found at this site a “structure” which he (Zertal) believed was probably an altar and could be connected in some fashion with the altar mentioned in <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Joshua+8.30-31&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Joshua.8.30-31" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Joshua 8:30-31</a> (on this, see now an update below, as an addendum to this blog post of mine). Rather this inscribed lead object was found in 2019, as part of a process of wet sifting and dry sifting some of the dirt that had been removed as part of the 1980s excavations. Perhaps also useful to mention: the press conference at Lanier Theological Library references some carbon remains that were found during the sifting, but there is no reference, alas, to any carbon dates (e.g., AMS, etc.). Also important to mention is the fact that Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen have not yet finished writing the scholarly article about this find. They are hoping to complete it in the coming months and then to submit it for publication somewhere.

                  Some Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Background

                  The Claims of Stripling, van der Veen, Galil…and Some Responses

                  There are some rather striking claims in the press conference about this lead inscription and about its implications. First and foremost, I would emphasize that reading and deciphering Early Alphabetic inscriptions is difficult. Thus, is hard for me to believe that all of the readings of Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen will stand the test of time. In fact, I would predict that almost all of the readings posited in the press conference will be vigorously contested, once scholars in the field of epigraphy are allowed to see the images of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. Furthermore, I am certain that the translations of the readings will also be contested.

                  And it should also be emphasized that at the press conference *no* images from the Academy of Sciences of the Czeck Republic were shown. Thus, claims were made, but the real evidence was not shown! Normally, even during a press conference about a new inscription, a good image or two of the inscription is shown. But in this case, None! Also of import: it is striking that the only drawing presented at the press conference was a single drawing of a single putative occurrence of the divine name Yhw. And I would emphasize that this drawing struck me as particularly schematic in nature. As a result of all of these sorts of things, my hermeneutic of suspicion is, therefore, quite heightened.

                  But it’s worth looking even more at some of the dramatic claims. Stripling stated that: “One can no longer argue with a straight face that the Biblical text was not written until the Persian Period or the Hellenistic Period, as many higher critics have done when we clearly do have the ability to write the entire text [of the Bible] at a much, much earlier date.” Galil makes the same basic statement: “No one can claim the Bible was written in later periods, the Persian Period or the Hellenistic Period.” Similarly, Galil stated: “the person who wrote this was a genius, not only a scribe, but a theologian!” Stripling also stated that “our friends from the other side of the academic aisle have disparagingly spoken of us [that is, those] who believe that the Bible was written at an early date as this, because that was not [supposed to be] possible because there was no alphabetic script with which to write it. Clearly this [inscription] flies in the fact of that.” Galil goes on to state that “the scribe who wrote this important text….believe me…he could write every chapter in the Bible.” Galil also goes on and states that this “is the most important inscription ever found in Israel.”

                  It’s useful to step back for a moment. First, I would emphasize that with all due respect to Striping, most epigraphers believe that the alphabet was invented by the 18th century BCE. Thus, his statement that scholars have contended that there was no alphabet to write with doesn’t make enormous sense. Note also that Ugaritic is also an alphabetic language (and dates mostly to the 13th century BCE).

                  Second, I was also struck by the “loose language regarding chronology” in the press conference. For example, I think that what Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen were intending to say is that this inscription (as they understand it) provided evidence that writing of the Pentateuch (or portions of it), or the Hexateuch (i.e., Genesis through Joshua) could have been written prior to the Persian or Hellenistic Period. The fascinating thing is that normally they did not use very precise language and seemed to speak about the writing of the Bible as a whole. Thus, someone who is not familiar with the field might assume that this inscription proves that the whole Hebrew Bible was written in the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE (their date for this inscription). I don’t think that’s what they intended to say (as books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 1-2 Chronicles, etc. are obviously all Second Temple, and none of the Latter Prophets or the book of the Twelve could have been written so early, based on the material in these books and the chronological reference points contained therein, etc.).

                  Also, it is perhaps worth mentioning that people such as I have argued for some time that there was a fair amount of alphabetic writing in the late 2nd millennium BCE (e.g., Rollston, “Inscriptional Evidence for the Writing of the Earliest Texts of the Bible: Intellectual Infrastructure in Tenth- and Ninth-Century Israel, Judah, and the Southern Levant.” Pp. 15-45 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, eds. Jan C. Gertz, Bernard Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016). And so I found it striking that these authors did not seem to know about the history of the field in this regard.

                  Also, and perhaps even more importantly, even if we assume everything that Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen state about the readings and translation is correct (and that’s a big assumption), they have told us that there are 40 letters. They have also said that the word curse or accursed occurs 10 times. There are three letters in that root (’rr). So that’s 30 of the 40! And the remaining 10 letters are used to write “God,” “die,” and “Yhw.” If we do have those four words or roots: namely, “curse,” “God,” “die” and “Yahweh,” I’m happy to say that somebody back then and there could write, and hopefully somebody else back then and there could read it. But to say that based on those four words or roots that somebody could write the whole Bible….well, that’s a bridge (way) too far for me. After all, there are 8500+ words in the Hebrew Bible (counting verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, particles, common nouns, proper nouns), and four is a pretty small fraction of the whole, therefore!

                  Furthermore, Galil also stated: “this is not just a curse. It is actually a legal text, not just a legal warning.” Van der Veen also is of the same mind: “It is a legal verdict about an unknown person or group who are addressed in the inscription.” This too is quite a leap. After all, we have 40 letters, four basic root words, and all of a sudden we have a legal text! I don’t think that my own esteemed master-teacher of law and diplomacy in the ancient Near East (the late Raymond Westbrook) would find these statements by Galil and van der Veen to be the least bit compelling. And neither do I.

                  But it gets even more interesting. When Stripling is asked by someone in the audience if this inscription coincides or correlates with the Covenant Renewal Ceremony in the book of Joshua, he replied: “I believe the answer is ‘yes.’” And when someone in the audience asks if this inscription impacts the way in which we should conceive of the Exodus from Egypt and the Conquest, he replies that this inscription reveals that “the Exodus from Egypt and the Conquest of the land of Canaan would have occurred at an earlier date” than has usually been supposed. He elaborates further than this inscription “tips the scale in favor of an earlier date.”

                  It is perhaps useful for me to mention in this connection that the consensus view (among those, such as I, who believe that there was some sort of Exodus, and that there was also some sort of entrance into the land of Canaan for at least some of the Proto-Israelites, and that there were at least some battles as part of that) is that the 13th century BCE is the operative century for the Exodus and Conquest (based on the convergence of a fair amount of evidence, biblical and otherwise…in other words, I fall into the same category as Richard Elliott Friedman in his volume entitled Exodus: How it Happened and Why it Matters). However, a date in the 15th century has been the darling of a few scholars through the years (especially because of the statement in <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=1Kings+6.1&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.1Kings.6.1" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">1 Kings 6:1</a> that the First Temple was built 480 years after the Exodus. As for me, I mostly feel that 40 is a stock numeral in the ancient Near East and in the Bible, and since 12 is the number of the tribes of Israel, well, 480 sounds like a schematic numeral that plugs in two very common biblical numerals). In any case, Stripling even concludes on the basis of this little inscription that he finds support for the early date. That’s quite a leap on the basis of a lead inscription that cannot be dated with enormous precision and contains zero personal names (of historical people) and zero references to any historical event! Again, this is a bridge too far.

                  It is also worth mentioning that I am not too certain that the divine name Yhw is in this inscription (although I hope that it is). Moreover, I would emphasize that the script of this inscription (if there actually is a legible inscription) is Early Alphabetic, not Hebrew. Thus, I’d really be very disinclined to call it the earliest Hebrew inscription (in terms of script or language). In this connection it is worth noting that the words “God,” “cursed,” “die,” “death,” are all Common Semitic. That is, they are present in several different ancient Semitic languages (e.g., Ugaritic, Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Akkadian, etc.); thus, they are not “diagnostic” for any particular Semitic language, since they occur across the Semitic languages. Sometimes I hear someone say, “Oh, this text must be Hebrew, because this is a Hebrew word.” Well, the problem with that is that the word may be Hebrew, but it is not *exclusively* Hebrew. But rather it occurs in several different Semitic languages (hence the term “Common Semitic”). Of course, someone might say in reply to me, “Yes, those other words in this inscription are Common Semitic, but the word Yhw is the name of the God of Israel.” And I would reply that we can talk more about this when good images of this inscription are available. But even if these three letters are present (yhw) and are to be read in this order (which may not be the case), that’s not the only word that those letters could be. In short, I tend to believe that it’s best to try to avoid making precarious statements. And I’ll stick with that methodology for this inscription as well.

                  Conclusions:

                  In sum, I would mostly suggest that we step back and let the dust settle on this one. It seems to me that Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen have made a fair number of big assumptions. Moreover, I am far from convinced of their readings….especially since they have not even provided so much as a single good image!

                  And it also seems to me that the best predictor of the future is the past, and in the past, time and time again, sensational claims turn to ash in the crucible of serious, philological and epigraphic analysis. So, let’s wait and see how this turns out. But as for me, I’m afraid that I’m too methodologically cautious to embrace the sensational assumptions of Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen.

                  Addendum: Prof. Amihai Mazar has emphasized to me (personal communication) that Zertal’s suggestion that he had found an altar at Mount Ebal is “much debated within the archaeological community.” He has also emphasized that in this region, “no one has seen, before or after this discovery, an altar of approximately 8m x 9m in size.” Prof. Mazar has also noted that “the earlier installation could have been used in a cultic context, but does not resemble an altar.” I’m very grateful for Prof. Ami Mazar’s note and for the data contained in it.
                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    A very interesting response from March 26 by Christopher Rollston on this discovery. He raises some serious questions on the claims made by Stripling and Galil re the text, the wording, and the tetragrammaton. Rollston considers that many assumptions have been made by them and he is far from convinced of their readings. He too found the lack of any images being shown at the press conference somewhat unusual.


                    http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=949
                    Setting the Stage:

                    Some sensational claims were made in a press conference on March 24, 2022 about a small lead ‘inscription’ that is purported to hail from the Late Bronze Age, to be written in the Ancient Hebrew language, to consist of forty letters, to be full of curses (i.e., with the tri-literal root ’rr occurring ten times), and to twice mention Yahweh. And as part of these claims, it was asserted in the press conference that there are a lot of firsts for this inscription (e.g., oldest Hebrew inscription, earliest reference in a Hebrew text to Yahweh, etc.). (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrWTCgQZ_eA ).

                    These are some mighty sensational claims. However, sensational claims require sensational evidence, that is, evidence that is absolutely overwhelming and entirely compelling. And in this case, I would suggest that some methodological doubt is probably a very useful thing. Of course, this find does hail from Mount Ebal, the famous site which was excavated by Adam Zertal during the 1980s. Therefore, this find is interesting, and it is ostensibly important. But something else that is normally just as important is methodological caution regarding sensational conclusions! After all, dramatic claims have been so very common during recent years, and the end result is almost always the same: the dramatic and sensational claims crumble under the weight of scrutiny, and then more sober conclusions rise to the fore as the most compelling.

                    Some Further Details

                    Here are some of the basic facts. On March 24, 2022 at Lanier Theological Library (in Houston, Texas), Scott Stripling (Provost of The Bible Seminary in Katy, Texas; and the Director of Excavations for the Associates for Biblical Research at Khirbet el-Maqatir and Shiloh, Israel), along with Pieter van der Veen (Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz), and Gershon Galil (University of Haifa) held a press conference to announce the discovery and putative decipherment of a 2 cm x 2 cm folded lead inscription (nota bene: the inscription remains folded, that is, it has not been opened). According to Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen, the forty letters on the inside of this folded lead object are not discernible via the naked eye. However, via imaging that was conducted in Prague at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, they (i.e., van der Veen and Galil) believe that forty letters can be seen, that these letters can be read, and the words that result can be deciphered. Here is their translation: “Cursed, cursed, cursed – cursed by the God Yhw [Yahweh], You will die cursed. Cursed you will surely die. Cursed by Yhw – cursed, cursed, cursed.” Furthermore, these scholars contend that the script of this inscription is “Proto-Alphabetic” (it is perhaps useful to mention that a standard means of describing the alphabetic script at this time period would be Early Alphabetic or Proto-Canaanite, rather than “Proto-Alphabetic). Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen also state that there are some letters on the outside of this folded lead object, but they do not mention which letters or words they might be reading on the outside.

                    Significantly, this inscription was not found in a stratified context during excavations at “Mount Ebal.” Note that Adam Zertal directed the excavations at Mount Ebal in the 1980s, and he believed that he had found at this site a “structure” which he (Zertal) believed was probably an altar and could be connected in some fashion with the altar mentioned in <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Joshua+8.30-31&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Joshua.8.30-31" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Joshua 8:30-31</a> (on this, see now an update below, as an addendum to this blog post of mine). Rather this inscribed lead object was found in 2019, as part of a process of wet sifting and dry sifting some of the dirt that had been removed as part of the 1980s excavations. Perhaps also useful to mention: the press conference at Lanier Theological Library references some carbon remains that were found during the sifting, but there is no reference, alas, to any carbon dates (e.g., AMS, etc.). Also important to mention is the fact that Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen have not yet finished writing the scholarly article about this find. They are hoping to complete it in the coming months and then to submit it for publication somewhere.

                    Some Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Background

                    The Claims of Stripling, van der Veen, Galil…and Some Responses

                    There are some rather striking claims in the press conference about this lead inscription and about its implications. First and foremost, I would emphasize that reading and deciphering Early Alphabetic inscriptions is difficult. Thus, is hard for me to believe that all of the readings of Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen will stand the test of time. In fact, I would predict that almost all of the readings posited in the press conference will be vigorously contested, once scholars in the field of epigraphy are allowed to see the images of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. Furthermore, I am certain that the translations of the readings will also be contested.

                    And it should also be emphasized that at the press conference *no* images from the Academy of Sciences of the Czeck Republic were shown. Thus, claims were made, but the real evidence was not shown! Normally, even during a press conference about a new inscription, a good image or two of the inscription is shown. But in this case, None! Also of import: it is striking that the only drawing presented at the press conference was a single drawing of a single putative occurrence of the divine name Yhw. And I would emphasize that this drawing struck me as particularly schematic in nature. As a result of all of these sorts of things, my hermeneutic of suspicion is, therefore, quite heightened.

                    But it’s worth looking even more at some of the dramatic claims. Stripling stated that: “One can no longer argue with a straight face that the Biblical text was not written until the Persian Period or the Hellenistic Period, as many higher critics have done when we clearly do have the ability to write the entire text [of the Bible] at a much, much earlier date.” Galil makes the same basic statement: “No one can claim the Bible was written in later periods, the Persian Period or the Hellenistic Period.” Similarly, Galil stated: “the person who wrote this was a genius, not only a scribe, but a theologian!” Stripling also stated that “our friends from the other side of the academic aisle have disparagingly spoken of us [that is, those] who believe that the Bible was written at an early date as this, because that was not [supposed to be] possible because there was no alphabetic script with which to write it. Clearly this [inscription] flies in the fact of that.” Galil goes on to state that “the scribe who wrote this important text….believe me…he could write every chapter in the Bible.” Galil also goes on and states that this “is the most important inscription ever found in Israel.”

                    It’s useful to step back for a moment. First, I would emphasize that with all due respect to Striping, most epigraphers believe that the alphabet was invented by the 18th century BCE. Thus, his statement that scholars have contended that there was no alphabet to write with doesn’t make enormous sense. Note also that Ugaritic is also an alphabetic language (and dates mostly to the 13th century BCE).

                    Second, I was also struck by the “loose language regarding chronology” in the press conference. For example, I think that what Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen were intending to say is that this inscription (as they understand it) provided evidence that writing of the Pentateuch (or portions of it), or the Hexateuch (i.e., Genesis through Joshua) could have been written prior to the Persian or Hellenistic Period. The fascinating thing is that normally they did not use very precise language and seemed to speak about the writing of the Bible as a whole. Thus, someone who is not familiar with the field might assume that this inscription proves that the whole Hebrew Bible was written in the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE (their date for this inscription). I don’t think that’s what they intended to say (as books such as Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 1-2 Chronicles, etc. are obviously all Second Temple, and none of the Latter Prophets or the book of the Twelve could have been written so early, based on the material in these books and the chronological reference points contained therein, etc.).

                    Also, it is perhaps worth mentioning that people such as I have argued for some time that there was a fair amount of alphabetic writing in the late 2nd millennium BCE (e.g., Rollston, “Inscriptional Evidence for the Writing of the Earliest Texts of the Bible: Intellectual Infrastructure in Tenth- and Ninth-Century Israel, Judah, and the Southern Levant.” Pp. 15-45 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, eds. Jan C. Gertz, Bernard Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016). And so I found it striking that these authors did not seem to know about the history of the field in this regard.

                    Also, and perhaps even more importantly, even if we assume everything that Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen state about the readings and translation is correct (and that’s a big assumption), they have told us that there are 40 letters. They have also said that the word curse or accursed occurs 10 times. There are three letters in that root (’rr). So that’s 30 of the 40! And the remaining 10 letters are used to write “God,” “die,” and “Yhw.” If we do have those four words or roots: namely, “curse,” “God,” “die” and “Yahweh,” I’m happy to say that somebody back then and there could write, and hopefully somebody else back then and there could read it. But to say that based on those four words or roots that somebody could write the whole Bible….well, that’s a bridge (way) too far for me. After all, there are 8500+ words in the Hebrew Bible (counting verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, particles, common nouns, proper nouns), and four is a pretty small fraction of the whole, therefore!

                    Furthermore, Galil also stated: “this is not just a curse. It is actually a legal text, not just a legal warning.” Van der Veen also is of the same mind: “It is a legal verdict about an unknown person or group who are addressed in the inscription.” This too is quite a leap. After all, we have 40 letters, four basic root words, and all of a sudden we have a legal text! I don’t think that my own esteemed master-teacher of law and diplomacy in the ancient Near East (the late Raymond Westbrook) would find these statements by Galil and van der Veen to be the least bit compelling. And neither do I.

                    But it gets even more interesting. When Stripling is asked by someone in the audience if this inscription coincides or correlates with the Covenant Renewal Ceremony in the book of Joshua, he replied: “I believe the answer is ‘yes.’” And when someone in the audience asks if this inscription impacts the way in which we should conceive of the Exodus from Egypt and the Conquest, he replies that this inscription reveals that “the Exodus from Egypt and the Conquest of the land of Canaan would have occurred at an earlier date” than has usually been supposed. He elaborates further than this inscription “tips the scale in favor of an earlier date.”

                    It is perhaps useful for me to mention in this connection that the consensus view (among those, such as I, who believe that there was some sort of Exodus, and that there was also some sort of entrance into the land of Canaan for at least some of the Proto-Israelites, and that there were at least some battles as part of that) is that the 13th century BCE is the operative century for the Exodus and Conquest (based on the convergence of a fair amount of evidence, biblical and otherwise…in other words, I fall into the same category as Richard Elliott Friedman in his volume entitled Exodus: How it Happened and Why it Matters). However, a date in the 15th century has been the darling of a few scholars through the years (especially because of the statement in <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=1Kings+6.1&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.1Kings.6.1" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">1 Kings 6:1</a> that the First Temple was built 480 years after the Exodus. As for me, I mostly feel that 40 is a stock numeral in the ancient Near East and in the Bible, and since 12 is the number of the tribes of Israel, well, 480 sounds like a schematic numeral that plugs in two very common biblical numerals). In any case, Stripling even concludes on the basis of this little inscription that he finds support for the early date. That’s quite a leap on the basis of a lead inscription that cannot be dated with enormous precision and contains zero personal names (of historical people) and zero references to any historical event! Again, this is a bridge too far.

                    It is also worth mentioning that I am not too certain that the divine name Yhw is in this inscription (although I hope that it is). Moreover, I would emphasize that the script of this inscription (if there actually is a legible inscription) is Early Alphabetic, not Hebrew. Thus, I’d really be very disinclined to call it the earliest Hebrew inscription (in terms of script or language). In this connection it is worth noting that the words “God,” “cursed,” “die,” “death,” are all Common Semitic. That is, they are present in several different ancient Semitic languages (e.g., Ugaritic, Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Akkadian, etc.); thus, they are not “diagnostic” for any particular Semitic language, since they occur across the Semitic languages. Sometimes I hear someone say, “Oh, this text must be Hebrew, because this is a Hebrew word.” Well, the problem with that is that the word may be Hebrew, but it is not *exclusively* Hebrew. But rather it occurs in several different Semitic languages (hence the term “Common Semitic”). Of course, someone might say in reply to me, “Yes, those other words in this inscription are Common Semitic, but the word Yhw is the name of the God of Israel.” And I would reply that we can talk more about this when good images of this inscription are available. But even if these three letters are present (yhw) and are to be read in this order (which may not be the case), that’s not the only word that those letters could be. In short, I tend to believe that it’s best to try to avoid making precarious statements. And I’ll stick with that methodology for this inscription as well.

                    Conclusions:

                    In sum, I would mostly suggest that we step back and let the dust settle on this one. It seems to me that Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen have made a fair number of big assumptions. Moreover, I am far from convinced of their readings….especially since they have not even provided so much as a single good image!

                    And it also seems to me that the best predictor of the future is the past, and in the past, time and time again, sensational claims turn to ash in the crucible of serious, philological and epigraphic analysis. So, let’s wait and see how this turns out. But as for me, I’m afraid that I’m too methodologically cautious to embrace the sensational assumptions of Stripling, Galil, and van der Veen.

                    Addendum: Prof. Amihai Mazar has emphasized to me (personal communication) that Zertal’s suggestion that he had found an altar at Mount Ebal is “much debated within the archaeological community.” He has also emphasized that in this region, “no one has seen, before or after this discovery, an altar of approximately 8m x 9m in size.” Prof. Mazar has also noted that “the earlier installation could have been used in a cultic context, but does not resemble an altar.” I’m very grateful for Prof. Ami Mazar’s note and for the data contained in it.
                    Given that he hasn't looked at the artefact yet...

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      Wet sifting is used to find very small objects such as tiny pieces of bone, shells, or seeds. The standard mesh sizes used for dry sifting would easily have revealed an item of lead 2 x 2 cm. That would suggest that either the 1980s dig was somewhat careless or that the spoil heap was later "salted"..

                      As to your comment on "actual archaeologists" one does not usually find an archaeologist with expertise in aspects of European history in the 11th century CE leading a team working on an ancient site [for example in Greece] dating from the fourth century BCE.

                      That is the same approximate time scale between the site Stripling worked on for his dissertation and the site where this alleged discovery was made.

                      However, until the findings are published following peer review our exchanges are gaining us nothing.

                      Until this artefact is agreed to be genuine in every respect I retain a degree of scepticism. As previously noted forgeries are not unknown in this region particularly when trying to "prove the Bible".
                      You seem to have this strange belief that archaeologists only work on sites related to what they wrote their dissertation about back in college which could be several decades back. As you can see from his bio, much like other archaeologists, he has worked on numerous cites from different periods.

                      Scott Stripling is the Director of Excavations for the Associates for Biblical Research at ancient Shiloh (2017 to present). He also serves as Provost and Director of the Archaeology Institute at The Bible Seminary in Katy, Texas. Previously, Stripling directed the ABR excavations at Khirbet el-Maqatir, served as Field Supervisor at Tall el-Hammam in Jordan, and as a supervisor of the Temple Mount Sifting Project in Jerusalem.


                      Khirbet el-Maqatir has been identified as likely being the city of Ai mentioned in Joshua.

                      Tall el-Hammam has a history stretching from the Copper Age and into the Iron Age.

                      The Temple Mount goes back to David's time and up.


                      The one thing that we can agree on is

                      However, until the findings are published following peer review our exchanges are gaining us nothing.


                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Given that he hasn't looked at the artefact yet...
                        He has given a fair account of the causes for concern. It is a fair bet that the hexapla dates to Solomon's time or before (not that I would be putting my life's savings on it), but a wait and see approach certainly seems in order. It wouldn't be the first time that grand claims had failed to pan out, as Rollston notes. It seems a fairly exhaustive list of concerns, but he does not mention the idea that the previous dig failing to discover the artifact - I conclude that it could have been missed is taken as reasonable.
                        Last edited by tabibito; 04-01-2022, 07:27 AM.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                          He has given a fair account of the causes for concern. It is a fair bet that the hexapla dates to Solomon's time or before (not that I would be putting my life's savings on it), but a wait and see approach certainly seems in order. It wouldn't be the first time that grand claims had failed to pan out, as Rollston notes.
                          Indeed, but, at least to me, it sounds a lot like he's trying to push them to publish their findings by lighting a fire.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                            Indeed, but, at least to me, it sounds a lot like he's trying to push them to publish their findings by lighting a fire.
                            A scholar doing such a thing? Unthinkable.





                            Oh - you were talking about the kind of thing that happens in reality.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Given that he hasn't looked at the artefact yet...
                              Correction: No one has been permitted to see even an image of the artefact yet.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 05:38 AM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by tabibito, 09-07-2023, 02:41 PM
                              30 responses
                              134 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X