Questioning the Mount Ebal lead object’s interpretation

On By arenmaeirIn Miscellaneous

In a series of articles about to be published in IEJ, we question the highly publicized interpretation, by Scott Stripling and colleagues, that a lead object which they found in the sifting of sediments from the Mount Ebal Iron I site, can be identified as the earliest Hebrew inscription, and in fact two curse inscriptions.

In the three articles, we contend that this interpretation is lacking on many points, including whether it is an inscription, its dating, its function (it is most probably a mundane lead fishing weight) and other issues.

While this issue of IEJ has not appeared (hopefully in a few days), first reports on this have appeared now in the Jerusalem Post (even though they were supposed to wait for the actual publication…), and additional ones will appear soon in other news outlets.

The full references to the articles:

  • Maeir, A. M., and Rollston, C. 2023. The So-Called Mount Ebal Curse Tablet: A Critical Response to Stripling et al. Israel Exploration Journal 73(2): 132–42.
  • Mazar, A. 2023. The Lead Object from Mount Ebal as a Fishing-Net Sinker. Israel Exploration Journal 73(2): 143–52.
  • Yahalom-Mack, N. 2023. The Source of the Lead of the Mount Ebal “Tablet”. Israel Exploration Journal 73(2): 153–59.

This should lead to some fun discussions! :-)

6 thoughts on “Questioning the Mount Ebal lead object’s interpretation”

  1. Peter van der Veen

    It will but not so soon. I will respond in due time and present the letters I can see on the outside, verifying the fewer letters I suggest for the inside. Admittedly, the reading was heavily influenced by Galil, whose fanciful reading I reject. The process of working with him has been very unpleasant and if I had had the chance to work on the object without him, the reading (yes I still believe we have some letters) would have been far less sensational. I still believe that we have a curse and I disagree most heavily with Mazar’s interpretation. We will publish a response and if the doors remain closed at IEJ, then certainly somewhere else. I truly hope discussions on this enigmatic object can be open minded. Best Pieter van der Veen

    Like

    1. arenmaeir

      Peter – once the articles appear, you are welcome to submit a response to IEJ, which will be put through a process of review like all papers that we receive. Also, may I suggest you publish the suggested outer inscription before hand?
      Best
      Aren

      Like

      1. Pieter van der Veen

        Okay worth considering. Yes I first want to publish the outside, something I always wanted to do, but due to the complications in the process with the other epigrapher, I abstained from more trouble. I should have drawn the line much earlier during the process. But before I publish the outside, I do want to study the outside original object in greater details. I do see man made tooling marks and raised edges around the better preserved “letters” on the outside, but this will need to be more closely observed, before I make up my mind this time. If we have letters (and I think we have a few) then it needs to be seen what it says. If these marks are letters (rather than bumps) then this cannot bei a fishing weight. What seems certain, however, is that the object is enigmatic and will always raise an eyebrow, as its preservation is in terrible state.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. arenmaeir

        Peter – but shouldn’t all of this been done before publishing the article about the inner “inscription”.
        And BTW – even if there is an outer inscription (proof of this has to be published) it still could been made on a fishing weight…

        Like

      3. Peter van der Veen

        Agreed, but how often do I need to repeat this Aren that the process was a terrible one and that it led to a complete separation between Galil and me. As Stripling had already promised to so many people that the inside inscription (this is what was only believed to be there at the start), the inside was published first. Galil’s interpretation even of the outside is hilarious and I didn’t want to have anything to do with it. The whole process should be started from scratch and as others suggested I should write the article all by myself and write what I believe, not what others want me to believe. Yes writing could be found on a weight, but it depends what it says, if it says something at all. Yes the outside must be published first with good photographs. Best wishes Peter

        Like

Comments are closed.