• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

3200 year old Proto-Canaanite text found on Mt. Ebal

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Couple of updates:

First, Prof. Gershon Galil, the person who led the team who worked on interpreting the text on the amulet recently reported that another project of his, an ancient inscription from Canaanite Jerusalem, has been fully interpreted. Ironically, the text according to him is very similar to the Mt. Ebal amulet (reported in this Hebrew article):

ארור, ארור, מת תמת; ארור, ארור, מת תמת;
שר הער, מת תמת;
ארור, מת תמת; ארור, מת תמת; ארור, מת תמת​

My translation:

Cursed, cursed, you shall die; cursed, cursed you, shall die
Lord of the city, you shall die;
Cursed, cursed, you shall die; cursed, cursed you, shall die​

Here's a picture and a sketch of the text:

S1m8KVQi5_0_0_598_435_0_x-large.jpg


BJfmLKVQi9_0_0_606_451_0_x-large.jpg


Unfortunately, once again, he has yet to publish an academic paper with explanations of how he figured out what was written. He told the media that it should be published in a few months. It's already been a few months since the Mt. Ebal discovery and nothing has been published yet as far as I know. I hope something will be published soon.

2. I just came across an interesting theory tying the Shapira MS with the Mt. Ebal Amulet, written in this blog post.

For those who don't know, Moses Wilhelm Shapira was a Jewish apostate who converted to Christianity in the middle of the 19th century and lived in Jerusalem, selling ancient books and antiques.

He's most famous for being involved in two alleged forgery cases - once when he teamed up with a local Christian Arab named Selim al-Qari to make and sell fake Moabite potteries, and once when he claimed he had discovered the world's most ancient Torah scroll, with multiple variants from the Masoretic Text. The former is a subject that I'm looking into these days as part of research for a paper I'm working on. The latter has been a subject of much debate since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, as the world realized that Shapira may have found 'the first DSS' (actually, not really, it is very likely that the first Karaites already had some circa the 8th-9th centuries, but never mind that). Since then, there has been harsh dispute on whether the Shapira scroll was authentic or not. 'Was' being the key term here, because the Shapira scroll disappeared many decades ago.

In any case, the author of this blog post posits that the Shapira scroll - if legit - may change the understanding of the significance of the Mt. Ebal altar and amulet.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
ארור, ארור, מת תמת; ארור, ארור, מת תמת;
שר הער, מת תמת;
ארור, מת תמת; ארור, מת תמת; ארור, מת תמת​

My translation:

Cursed, cursed, you shall die; cursed, cursed you, shall die
Lord of the city, you shall die;
Cursed, cursed, you shall die; cursed, cursed you, shall die​

Here's a picture and a sketch of the text:

S1m8KVQi5_0_0_598_435_0_x-large.jpg


BJfmLKVQi9_0_0_606_451_0_x-large.jpg
Damn ancient amulet trolls.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
On the other hand, we have the article in Bible History Daily.

To the best of my knowledge, there has yet to be a substantive peer review. At least I could not find one, and I cannot help but think back to the early enthusiasm surrounding the James Ossuary. A wait-and-see posture might be best.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
On the other hand, we have the article in Bible History Daily.

To the best of my knowledge, there has yet to be a substantive peer review. At least I could not find one, and I cannot help but think back to the early enthusiasm surrounding the James Ossuary. A wait-and-see posture might be best.
You are correct. As I've already stated a number of times on this thread that we're still waiting for a proper academic paper to be published with the imagery and exact process of interpreting the text.

I don't think it's comparable to the James Ossuary or to the Yoash Inscription (part of the same ordeal) because the amulet was found in what I would call partially in situ, given that it was found in the dirt removed during the excavation of the altar. No one knows where the ossuary or the inscription came from, which is one of the reasons people doubt their authenticity.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I don't think it's comparable to the James Ossuary or to the Yoash Inscription (part of the same ordeal) because the amulet was found in what I would call partially in situ, given that it was found in the dirt removed during the excavation of the altar. No one knows where the ossuary or the inscription came from, which is one of the reasons people doubt their authenticity.
Good point - that's an important distinction. At the same time, if the claims made are accurate (and I love that to be the case) it would drive a pretty enormous stake into the coffers of the minimalist. I guess my only point is this: the more impactful the find, the more important the peer review.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Gershon Galil finally published an academic paper on the amulet. It's open access, so I'm linking and attaching a PDF.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
So, seven months later and another update on this subject: Roughly a week ago the archeology world was once again abuzz over this subject, as three academic papers were published in the latest issue of the IEJ (Israel Exploration Journal). Each paper argued that the Ebal object was not an amulet nor did it feature an inscription. The three were in agreement that the object was very likely a fishing-net weight, known professionally as a "sinker", but each tackled (excuse the pun) the issue from a different perspective.

A couple of articles on these claims:

Scott Stripling and his team have issued some responses. Right after their publication seven months ago, Peter Van Der Veen, one of the two lead epigraphists on the team, announced that he was relieved that he was no longer working with Gershon Galil. He believed the latter's interpretations to be significantly imaginary. While Van Der Veen agreed there is an inscription on the object and that even includes the Israelite God's name (Y-H-W), he believes that the inscription is much shorter than Galil's view (this was also stated in their joint publication). Van Der Veen remains committed to this view, and one of the archeologists who published a paper in the IEJ, Aren Maeir, agreed to post the latter's thoughts on his blog (link). Van Der Veen wants to publish another paper on the matter, as well as the publication of the long-awaited outer inscription (the publication only discussed the inner inscription) together with the rest of the team, bar Galil.

Stripling has also argued against the publications, but admittedly prior to reading them (they were first announced via a couple of news articles) (link).

Galil, for his part, has stated two things on the matter:
1. He is planning on publishing a book on the Ebal object (amulet?) this coming year. The book will feature high-quality images of the various letters he has identified and thorough explanations of his reading. Circa this publication we should also expect to see the publication of his and Eli Shukrun's book on the claimed new Hezekiah inscriptions.
2. In a short FB comment he noted that even if the object was originally a sinker, that in itself doesn't disprove the possibility of it being reused as an amulet.

While some researchers think that the IEJ articles are the final nail in the coffin, I think this is more wishful thinking on their part. It reminds me of some research I conducted for an essay I wrote a couple of years ago for uni, on the life of French archeologist Charles Clermont-Ganneau. One of Clermont-Ganneau's greatest claims to fame was his reconstruction of the shattered Mesha Stele and subsequent publication of the text. After its publication, some scholars raised the possibility that it was a fake, and to this day there are a few researchers who hold this view, or at least are willing to consider it. Most scholars today, however, would probably laugh at this notion. But in real-time, such dissenting voices probably held more weight. We can see from Clermont-Ganneau's multiple publications on the matter that he had to put in a lot of time and energy into arguing against such voices. So, as long as Stripling's team still has a fighting spirit in them for this matter, there probably won't be any set consensus for some time (whether there is an inscription on the Ebal object or not). Perhaps in a few years the technology to unfold the object without destroying it will be developed, which may be useful in its research.
 
Top