Yeah, the only people who actually agree with the findings of the article are the people who worked on it and Douglas Petrovich. Van der Veen, one of the articles epigraphers, doesn’t even agree with a lot of it.
I'm just glad he got it published. There was a secular guy on RU-vid that did not want this published and came up with every scenario under the sun why this wasn't real.
Who? I’ll go there and ask him a direct question to take a look at the recently released peer reviewed paper. Would be interesting to see if they would retain or retract any prior claims.
@@mikelsikel73 I don't remember. Some archeologist(supposedly) with a channel.He. was pushing the forgery idea, which does happen, but his scenario was a bit extraordinary. I personally think it's petty to go tell him "got cha". It'll just be another internet argument. But if you want to, just type in this particular subject; something like "mount eval curse tablet". He shouldn't be too hard to find.
@@mikelsikel73 I just tried to look him up for you, and there is no shortness of attacks. "yes it's peer reviewed, but not in the right magazine.""I would like guys I know to look at it". And so on. I find them to be jumping the gun because you cab tell they do not want it to be true because they have a bias; they're all a bit squirmy. I'll never understand this. Archeology is the search for truth. You should only be concerned with truth and not some previous bias you may have. But oh well. they seem yo have fangs out on these reviews.
@@Drakemiser ok, I do think there will be more discussion coming out in the following days. I do think it will be difficult for this discovery to dislodge the Documentary Hypothesis.
Great interview. Sean respectfully pulled out the important issues that need to be considered about this marvelous discovery. Very exciting! Congratulations to Dr Stripling and his team.
I can think of a long list of questions he didn’t ask but should’ve. The obvious one is, why does 99.9% of scholarship(Including Van der Veen, their own epigrapher) strongly disagree with the findings? Why does the direction of writing look like a drunk ant looking for food? Why was there no context provided for each individual letter? Why is there letters from completely different time periods on the same text? Why in the world would someone in that time period use 10+ different cases for a resh? That would be like using 12 different fonts on one text. Why is the findings portrayed as fact when nearly the entire interpretation of each later could be contested?
Most scholars are against it, Christians and secular, so let’s have a healthy skepticism until proven, instead of blind acceptance because it’s something we’d like.
Two comments: (1) Most scholars were skeptical prior to completion of the full peer review process and complete data being published, which is now finished, and (2) most skeptical scholars are strict materialists and deny even the possibility of miracles or revelation or God’s existence. ANY evidence that supports the historicity of the events in the Bible threatens their entire worldview and that is why they try so hard to cast doubt on all such findings. People forget that scientists are human beings first, each with a specific worldview-the lens through which they evaluate all evidence, and are equally susceptible to confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. It is always important to evaluate the REASONS they give to doubt a find like this. Not simply point to the existence of skeptics.
@@robertpreisser3547 I’m a Christian in the Biblical Studies of the OT area, this is not about whether we are Christian or not. I mostly follow Christian archeologists who would affirm God’s power to work miraculously, as would I, but the way in which this discovery has been published and promoted has been unfortunate. The typical procedures for archeological claims like this were not followed (going public before the peer review for example), which is the main reason for the skepticism. Yes, now they published, but the reception has not been more positive because of it, more data is needed. Just because we are believers does not mean we should skip sound methodology, in fact, we shout attempt to be even more rigorous. Augustine literally pointed out this sort of behavior as a way to get non-believers to discount the reasonableness of the faith. If we seek to be responsible seekers of the truth, we should be as rigorous as possible and not be premature in our judgments, even if we wish the discoveries to be true. My belief in God’s power to do the miraculous is not an excuse to accept archeological claims without sufficient evidence. My comment did not claim their claims are wrong (I’d love for it to be real!), merely that we should wait to have more evidence before we blindly celebrate it. That’s it.
Extremely exciting. Thanks for hosting Dr Stripling, Sean. Such an important discovery that validates so much re the historicity of the Exodus, the reliability of the narrative in the Pentateuch and supports a conservative approach to OT scholarship.
Now if they could just validate Noah's ark and the great flood that covered the entire planet in water! Extremely exciting days of Christian scholarship ahead! I can't wait for them to discover when an entire city was raised from the dead as well from Leviticus! Lets go Christian history woooooo!!! We know these events really happened of course, because as we all know the bible is infallible and the inerrant word of God. So no two ways about it, no sir. The world was definitely covered with water up to mount everest, and I'm trembling with excitement, ready for the evidence to prove those atheist scientists wrong! LETS GO CHRISTIAN SCIENCE WOOOOO
Can you please ask why there are images of the outside but not the inside? Why are people forced to trust artist reconstructions without seeing the full context?
I've looked at the published scans. the problem I have as a layman is that when I look at Egyptian Hieroglyphics, I don't know what they're saying, but I can see that they're there. in this case, I can't see anything apart from random marks that could easily just have been naturally made. there's maybe a few marks that look manmade, but even that is a stretch
I don't know what delighted me more: Dr. Sean saying, "Holy Cow," or Dr Stripling lamenting he'd rather be known for a blessing. Another great interview with important implications. (And, by the way, hearing that curse read out loud "got my freaks out" as my son used to say when he was little.)
Absolutely fascinating !! I can just imagine the scribe being told to take down notes ."did you get all that ? " .. "uh. yep, got it, curse, curse, curse.. YHWH.. curse.. "
Just curious.....if there was a curse tablet placed on Mt Ebal, would there have also been a blessing tablet placed somewhere on the opposite mountain?
I don’t believe there is any reason to believe the curse tablet was left there on purpose. I believe this is a personal tablet that is something made to be carried by a citizen as a reminder.
Note: Douglas Petrovich would say that it's proto-hebrew text. Check out his book The World's Oldest Alphabet: Hebrew as the Language of the Proto-consonantal Script. Note the book is out of print.
Been waiting for this peer-reviewed study to come out for months! So excited you are on top of this Sean, and excited to hear if there's validity to these findings!
Yeah, the only people who actually agree with the findings of the article are the people who worked on it and Douglas Petrovich. Van der Veen, one of the articles epigraphers, doesn’t even agree with a lot of it. There isn’t validity.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou if you’re unfamiliar with the blind peer review process, the 3 reviewers need to have experience in the fields of the article and go through the process of critiquing before it is submitted. In the conclusion section it says that the writing is proto-alphabetic Script (Proto-Hebrew), and that the tablet dates between 1400-1250bce. The reviewers all agreed on those conclusions, but not everybody is in agreement on the interpretation. That needs work outside the few who looked at it. But the three reviewers agreed for the conclusions to be submitted. How is that not validating?
@@phil3467 This is a special circumstance considering they decided to publish in a journal that doesn’t specialize in the required skills that are needed. They could’ve had a bunch of biologists peer-review it for all we know. None of the top epigraphers in the world were asked to work in this which should be alarming for such a supposedly huge find. We honestly don’t know anything about what the reviewers thought besides that they thought they did the job they were supposed to. If they weren’t qualified in epigraphy, it doesn’t matter if they agreed with the findings because they aren’t experienced enough to know. In addition, peer-review doesn’t mean that the people that reviewed it agreed with what was in it. It means that they thought the information was up to a certain standard. There’s plenty of ridiculous claims that get published because sometimes ridiculous things are worth talking about. Peer-review is not some magic strategy that decides what is true. No matter what the peer-reviewers thought, we can be confident that the claims are nonsensical just from the sheer-unanimous disagreement by practically all professionals as well as a very long list of other reasons which they have documented. If you want to learn more about why they reject it, I made a video summarizing their thoughts titled “What are the scholars saying about the Mt. Ebal Tablet publication?”.
ABR calls it an altar, which is over 1 mile away from the ceremonial location on Mount Ebal. That alone should have put an end to this sensationist charade.
@Sean McDowell I love your work. However…on this video…Did you read the article? did you see the actual tablet scans? very VERY very dubious that you or I or anyone else can actually make out the letters and the loopy loop “line” to read it…it looks like a rollercoaster ride which seems highly suspect. And instead of just interviewing him, you should be asking him to show the epigraphic evidence and show the actual letters ON the lead tablet and on the scans. because as a believer, I want fellow Christians to be known for rigorous research, NOT wishful thinking. and the scan pics that i have seen look ridiculous and doubtful. But I want to hear the case from Stripling actually SHOWING us how he gets this curse reading from the scans.
read the paper, exciting yet a bit confusing in terms of the interpreting process, would love to watch any further detailed walk through to guide us laities in understanding how they arrived at that particular reading, since the flow(directions) of letters do seems very creative (somewhat random) to us modern writers. any debate would also be awesome to watch. i think Dr. stripling should bring on his fellow paleographers to further enlighten us.
Yeah, the only people who actually agree with the findings of the article are the people who worked on it and Douglas Petrovich. Van der Veen, one of the articles epigraphers, doesn’t even agree with a lot of it.
I have been waiting for this update since the press conference. So thank you Sean!!! Love your ministry. Question: during the original press conference, Scott alluded that they may know who the author of the curse tablet is. Do you know if this is covered in the peer review journal?
You.... might want to look into how this "finding" has been received by the experts. Basically this is just a big lie that Sean platformed. Don't trust people with such poor motivations that they will break the law and do "secret" findings please. No credible epigrapher is saying this is human writing. No archaeologist is saying this holds up to real research. Zero. Only the people that found this say so and they can't back their claims up at all. Just scratched in metal like you would see on any scrap metal.
I've heard that there are a few reasons we don't learn about these discoveries: 1. Most of the discoveries aren't huge things, so most things fly under the radar. 2. There isn't a good system set up to get the word out. The archaeologists themselves are too busy to publish findings. 3. Even when things get published, it's not exactly a pipeline directly to the media. Sometimes papers are boring to read... :)
It is still unclear to me whether or not there was text on the inside of this tablet that has been recovered and translated. If there was writing on the inside, how was the tablet unfolded? Or, was it unnecessary to unfold given the scanning techniques now available?
It's a scam. The ancients, not having the wherewith to make themselves comfortable, execrated the winter season much more than the moderns. Hence their intense hate of this season so often expressed in their records.' Having demolished Ai (the old year), Joshua (the Sun) set up an altar in Mount Ebal (bare mountain = the dreary and desolate earth at the spring equinox), whence he delivered "the blessings and the cursings" (Josh, 8. 34), half the tribes standing on either side of him (Deut. 27.12, 13), "according to the book of the law." (Josh, 8. 34.) ... Joshua next re-wrote the law of Moses in the presence of the children of Israel (the Sun being in Aries), who stood on both sides of the ark of the covenant (spring equinox) - half over against mount Gerizim (dividing), and half over against mount Ebal (stripping), i.e., half were below, and half above the equinoctial line. To these, summer and winter, Joshua read the "blessings and the cursings according to all that is written in the book of the law (8.34) - the blessings went to the summer; the cursings, to the winter side of the year.
I would like it if Sean had on someone who does subscribe to the documentary hypothesis (DH) or at least some of the main points, to provide maybe a more nuanced view on whether this discovery (with credit acknowledged to Dr Stripling and his colleagues for clearly a large amount of hard work) is really a bombshell that can take down the DH. I don’t think the idea that the Pentateuch may have multiple sources and compiled later, of which there is a lot of linguistic evidence, would be negated just by two names for God appearing contemporaneously. Perhaps the DH is a problem for strict inerrantists, of whom I am sure there are many on this comments thread. Someone like Pete Enns comes to mind as a possible person to bounce this discovery off. Thank you Sean and Scott.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou I think that on much of his content, which is sound-bitey (can’t say I blame him, people have short attention spans) Sean keeps it quite high level. But I am actually pretty sure he knows plenty about the DH. For example if you look into Sean’s original view of martyrs and then how he changed his view - he is able to research at an academic level much more than the typical layperson, yet he maintains sort of a “youth group leader” public persona. However - I just looked up your channel - which seems to have pretty deep content and I’m about to subscribe. You’re probably not his typical guest, but maybe Sean should interview *you* ! Best regards.
Big Mac, fries, and a chocolate shake. Just kidding. I love Dr. Striplings' work and am a supporter of The Associates for Biblical Research and a subscriber to their "Bible and Spade" journal. Great stuff!
Can Scott chime in on whether the article was reviewed by an epigrapher? It seems not to have been published in a relevant journal that would have experienced epigraphic reviewers.
Scott Stripling won't know who the reviewers were. That's the whole point of blind review. But, given the purview of the journal it seems doubtful that the article was reviewed by an epigraoher.
The only epigrapher I have found that saw this was Van der Veen. He was one of the articles epigraphers and doesn’t agree with tons of it. Bad archaeology.
You.... might want to look into how this "finding" has been received by the experts. Basically this is just a big lie. Don't trust people with such poor motivations that they will break the law and do "secret" findings please. No credible epigrapher is saying this is human writing. Just scratched in metal like you would see on any scrap metal.
@@SeanMcDowell The only interesting part of this is the lengths these people went to to present bogus archaeology. Please do better research than this Sean. Otherwise you look dishonest.
I enjoyed this interview and I think it cleared up a lot of the misconceptions I had heard. The only thing that wasn't addressed was why _this_ specific Journal - Heritage Science? Critics that I had heard have said that this is a _science_ Journal and that the peer reviews focus heavily on the _material_ of the tablet but don't offer much in the way of epigraphy or paleography, or anything that would validate the _content_ of the writing. I'd be curious to hear Dr. Galil's response to the criticism as to why this wasn't published in a more relevant Journal. Other than that, I found the video very thorough and informative! Edit: Oh, I'd also be curious to hear the reasons behind the dating; he said one person dated it to the 1200s but he thinks it's closer to the 1400s? I'm curious as to what goes into the dating of the tablet (besides what was addressed) and why two different dates.
The dating for the object back to 1400 is based on the palaeography, which itself is incredibly dubious since 1) no two supposed letters on the object look alike, and 2) there are realistically no letters at all, but rather striations and cracks that have been misconstrued as text. Also, the claim is made in the article that the Laurion mines from where the tablet originated were operative in the Late Bronze Age, and it has been claimed here and in other interviews that the mines were closed after this date. This is patently false, as exports from the mines have been found all over the Eastern Mediterranean as late as 500 B.C.E. Moreover, Stripling has seemingly missed the obvious fact that metal was repurposed and recycled with tremendous regularity in the ancient world. It is not at all uncommon to find metal artefacts that were refined hundreds of years prior to their final form. The whole thing is a sham.
Not an epigraphist here, but I am quite confused about the perceived ordering of words on the tablet. It seems to have no order whatsoever, and that seems to be a common agreement across the board. I’d like to see another video discussing how the message was derived from what seems like a mess.
Don't worry. As a palaeographer I am just as confused. The answer to the question of "how the message was derived from what seems like a mess" is that the scholars who worked on this saw what they were looking for.
Protosiniatic is a vernacular written language that evolved in Egypt and the Sinai penensula, it is Neither Hebrew of Phonecian. It evolved into Early linear (Early phonecian) which then evolved into phonecian, aramaic and paleo hebrew. He is correct to say it was paleosiniatic, but there are two additional steps to hebrew. The second point is that 1175 is the generally agreed upon cutoff for the LBA and a fuzzy line (in anatolia it starts earlier and in Egypt is starts later) for the LBAC. Since lead is a non perishable raw material it could have been used anytime later than the last shipment. As is often the case in archaeology the last or first evidence does not equal the last shipmment of lead. Indeed people could have been fleeing the Aegean after the LBAC and using raw metals to trade for food or land. So the first evidence of Paleohebrew is in the tenth century, and the book of judges roughly portrays events from about 1100 to 1000 BCE and the onset of the LBAC in the south is roughly 1125, which means egyptian trade is still occurring. Thats only 25 years from the onset of the Egyptian late bronze collapse age to the period of Judges. If you consider Egypt as a trader of materials from elsewhere then they could have easily been the source. But why would the Egyptians have greek metals. Very simple, the Efyotians resettled greeks in S. Canaan and we kniw this because of the archaeology. So people fleeing the collapse may have been bartering with the egyptians for safe passage. I put the use of this metal during the period of judges. But it does answer the question what was the written language of Hebrews, what we learn here is at that time they were essentially using a shopkeepers vulgate. BTW, i have looked at the impressions, AFAIK there is no YHW, and even if there was, that was the god of the Shasu.
You make a good point but if they would have gone to peer review first, this could have been avoided. Noting that what they call Joshua's altar is over a mile away from the place of the blessing and cursing ceremony. This is one of the main factors in which scholars denied the archaeological claims of Dr. Adam Zertal.
They corroborated the fact that Mt. Ebal was used for cursing. This is useful certainly, but we find things that support the Biblical history all the time. The Bible can be like other ancient history books; it can get some things right and some things wrong. Saying this proves the Bible is a big stretch.
@@redeemedchannel5580 yep, like piltdown man. We didn't have the technology that we have today, whereas the shroud has been tested, and been proven as weave from the middle ages. As for this tablet, let's wait for peer review from reputable archeologists.
The discovery of the tablet is amazing, but there's not even one vocalic proof of the vowels of the so called 'Yahweh'. The only vocalic proof in Hebrew sources in history is for Yehovah. Nehemia Gordon should be invited to this show.
That’s why I believe the Book of Mormon because of the script from a dump pile providentially found! The apologists can prove it’s true. I don’t know why the scientific community is skeptical?
Strange my post keeps getting deleted! No links allowed? A recent article on this topic appears in the Times of Israel "Academic article on controversial 3,200-year-old ‘curse tablet’ fails to sway experts" by Melanie Lidman
Right. RU-vid doesn’t allow links. Still a relatively good article, though. My video on it gives a lot more feedback from scholarship than the article does if you are interested.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou Thanks for the feedback. I watched and enjoyed your video "What Are The Scholars Saying About The Mt. Ebal Tablet Publication?"
@@daleproctor3723 The ancients, not having the wherewith to make themselves comfortable, execrated the winter season much more than the moderns. Hence their intense hate of this season so often expressed in their records.' Having demolished Ai (the old year), Joshua (the Sun) set up an altar in Mount Ebal (bare mountain = the dreary and desolate earth at the spring equinox), whence he delivered "the blessings and the cursings" (Josh, 8. 34), half the tribes standing on either side of him (Deut. 27.12, 13), "according to the book of the law." (Josh, 8. 34.) Joshua next re-wrote the law of Moses in the presence of the children of Israel (the Sun being in Aries), who stood on both sides of the ark of the covenant (spring equinox) - half over against mount Gerizim (dividing), and half over against mount Ebal (stripping), i.e., half were below, and half above the equinoctial line. To these, summer and winter, Joshua read the "blessings and the cursings according to all that is written in the book of the law (8.34) - the blessings went to the summer; the cursings, to the winter side of the year.
Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stauros, [stake].” (Galatians 3:13)
The ancients, not having the wherewith to make themselves comfortable, execrated the winter season much more than the moderns. Hence their intense hate of this season so often expressed in their records.' Having demolished Ai (the old year), Joshua (the Sun) set up an altar in Mount Ebal (bare mountain = the dreary and desolate earth at the spring equinox), whence he delivered "the blessings and the cursings" (Josh, 8. 34), half the tribes standing on either side of him (Deut. 27.12, 13), "according to the book of the law." (Josh, 8. 34.) Joshua next re-wrote the law of Moses in the presence of the children of Israel (the Sun being in Aries), who stood on both sides of the ark of the covenant (spring equinox) - half over against mount Gerizim (dividing), and half over against mount Ebal (stripping), i.e., half were below, and half above the equinoctial line. To these, summer and winter, Joshua read the "blessings and the cursings according to all that is written in the book of the law (8.34) - the blessings went to the summer; the cursings, to the winter side of the year.
The idea that this discovery threatens the documentary hypothesis is really absurd. Here's some things to note: 1. The use of "El" in the Ebal curse tablet is not being used as a name, but as they agree in their article, a generic term for God. El is the generic word for God regardless of what source is writing in the Pentateuch. The question is not what generic designator each source uses but rather what name/title they use. The J source prefers the name Yahweh, but there's no reason it can't refer to Yahweh as a God, "El." 2. There is a lot of relevant evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis besides just the different names used for Gods (listed below). There's definitely room for debate about exactly how many sources we have, and what they are like, and when they were written. All of this is difficult to determine. But it appears to me that hardly anyone in Academia at this point doubts that the Pentateuch consists of multiple sources. People who question the documentary hypothesis (e.g. the Europeans) generally propose not one source, but rather an enormous number of fragmentary sources that have been assembled over multiple redactions. If you propose that the Pentateuch was written by one person in an Academic setting, you will may well get laughed out of the room. The only reason people seemed to have entertained this idea in the first place is because that's what Jews living hundreds of years later thought. Anyway, here's some evidence that multiple sources have gone into writing the Pentateuch: 1. Genesis 37:10, Joseph's mother Rachel is still alive. But she had already died in Genesis 35:19. This is an unlikely mistake if the entire work is by a single author. It is much better explained by the redaction of different sources. 2. In Genesis 37:25-28, there is a confusing relationship between two different peoples, the Ishmaelites and the Midianites. The Ishmaelites appear to purchase Joseph from the Midianites but in Genesis 37:36 the Midianites are the ones to sell Joseph to Potiphar. It's hard to figure out exactly what's going on here, but it seems most likely that there were two stories of Joseph's purchase, one by Ishmaelites and one by Midianites, and they have been interwoven. 3. Two different explanations are given for why Laban's sheep come out striped and speckled. In Genesis 30:37-39 it is because of Jacob's wooden rods but in 31:10-12 it is because the father goats are striped and speckled (which Jacob learns in a dream from an angel). 4. In Genesis 17:25 Ishmael is already a teenager but in Genesis 21:14 he's a child small enough to be carried by Hagar. This mistake is best explained as a redaction of different sources. Note that Hagar had already fled from Sarah in Genesis 16 and now the story appears to be told a second time. 5. Genesis 16:15-16, seems to be highly redundant and is probably a different source's version of the story told in 16:4-14. It's true that Hebrews liked repetition in their writing but that's generally a more poetic construction (i.e. a couplet of poetry where the second line states the same ideas as the first). Outright repeating a prose narrative is strange. 6. In Genesis 20 Sarah is beautiful and desirable but in 17:17 and 18:12 she was an old woman. Again, best explained by the redaction of multiple sources. 7. Genesis 12:6 Whoever wrote this source appears to be living in the land after the Canaanites have been eliminated. If Moses wrote at least some part of the Pentateuch (an idea rejected by mainstream scholarship), he wouldn't be expected to write this. There are similar anachronisms like this throughout the Pentateuch, for example, Abraham being said to come from Ur of the Chaldeans. The Chaldeans don't appear to have existed at the time of Abraham. 8. In Genesis 7:12 and 7:4 it rains for 40 days. But in verse 24 the waters are swelling for 150 days. If the waters are still swelling, this implies it is still raining (though water could possibly just be coming from the fountains of the deep at this point), a contradiction which is best explained by the redaction of multiple sources. Note that at 8:6 we are back to 40 days. 9. Likewise at the end of chapter 6 Noah is twice instructed to take 2 of every kind of animal, with no mention of 7. But then in 7:2 he must take seven pairs of all clean animals. Note that in 7:9 there's once again no mention of seven animals, just two of each. There are a couple other of redundancies in this passage, e.g. 9:1 and 9:7. It's possible this is just a very strangely constructed narrative but it seems much more likely that at least two different versions of Noah's story have been brought together here. 10. The creation narrative restarts in the second half of Genesis 2:4. Note that in Genesis 2:19 God makes all the animals and birds though he had already done so in Genesis 1:20-24. Some translations hide this discrepancy by using the pluperfect "had formed" in Genesis 2:19. But ancient Hebrew has no tenses, only perfect or imperfect verbs, and perfect verbs, such as that encountered in Genesis 2:19, are nearly always translated in the simple past tense "formed." These are just ten examples from the book of Genesis. There's more to be found just in Genesis and more in the other four books of the Pentateuch. The book of Deuteronomy, in particular, shows clear signs of being the work of different authors from the rest of the Pentateuch. I think anyone can notice the difference in style just reading in an English translation (I encourage you to go read Deuteronomy again if you aren't sure). I hope I've made it clear that the idea that multiple sources contributed to the writing of the Pentateuch does not simply rest on the fact that different titles are used for God.
I think the point is that it challenges the foundational assumption of the documentary hypothesis that the Pentateuch COULD NOT have been written early in history because a written Hebrew script did not exist. Certainly it does not disprove it, but it does lend evidence that the books could be much older and possible more reliable than previously thought possible. Oh, and although the term El is a generic term for GOD, the name Yahweh found as a three letter script (YWH) on the tablet is in fact specific to the God of Isreal.
@@gre_properties In the article Stripling and his crew published they acknowledged that the Egyptian inscriptions about the "Shasu of YHW" are legitimate references to Yahweh which means they implicitly do not think Yahweh is only a God of the Hebrews (though he is certainly most strongly associated with them. We sadly just don't have enough inscriptions from that time to know what other pantheons he might have belonged to). They wrongly assert that the inscriptions must be Hebrew. It's very probably paleo-hebrew but the mention of Yahweh is insufficient evidence to conclude this, assuming we agree that Edomites/Midianites worshipped Yahweh. As for the dating, it's not really a key part of the documentary hypothesis (foundational as you call it) because there's always been heavy debate, even in academia, about when these sources date to. Recent scholars have argued for an exilic date for the J portions for example, though I'm not too keen on their arguments. So yeah this may push back the earliest possible date for these documents but it doesn't threaten the hypothesis foundationally, because the foundation is simply the idea that there are multiple sources (not even everyone agrees on J, E, P, and D, especially in Europe, though I think once you throw out large sources you are talking the fragmentary hypothesis or something) and the idea that there are multiple sources contributing to the pentateuch is for all intents and purposes beyond question at this point.
@@danielgrotz6599You just engaged in what you are criticizing the Stripling team of doing, and doing it from a straw-man argument. Haha. Thanks for the laugh! It was needed at the end of a long week. See below: "We sadly just don't have enough inscriptions from that time to know what other pantheons he might have belonged to). They wrongly assert that the inscriptions must be Hebrew. It's very probably paleo-hebrew but the mention of Yahweh is insufficient evidence to conclude this, assuming we agree that Edomites/Midianites worshipped Yahweh." This comment has a double-edge to your straw-man argument. How can they (Stripling et al) wrongly assert that the inscription must be Hebrew? If the evidence is insufficient for them to make an assertion, then the evidence is also insufficient for you to assert (assuming is the word you used) that the Edomites/Midianites worshipped Yahweh. Again, thank you. :-) God bless.
@@acomputerwiz-nerd5538 I think you didn't read my comment carefully enough. But for the sake of clarity here is the important information. 1. We have possible but highly debated evidence from Egyptian inscriptions that the Shasu worshipped Yahweh. 2. Stripling et al accepts this as a positive identification of Yahweh. 3. Stripling et al therefore does not have sufficient grounds to assert that the Ebal inscription must be Hebrew, because their reason for doing so is that it mentions Yahweh, but they themselves have admitted that at least one other people group worshipped Yahweh. My sentence containing "assuming we agree" was not intended as a statement of my opinion, but rather just a statement saying what we can conclude given a certain agreed starting point. I personally have doubts that the Shasu inscription is referencing a deity. I nonetheless think it is quite possible that Yahweh belonged to other pantheons. Given the location where the Ebal tablet was discovered, I do think the Hebrews are certainly the most likely source.
@@danielgrotz6599 I don't think that the hieroglyphs at Soleb are considered to be Hebrew, but rather written about them. Soleb and Amarah-West are both Egyptian temples. The consensus, I believe, is that these hieroglyphics are about the Israelites in the desert and not written by the Israelites. Soleb, in particular, also matches with a 1,400+- BC date.I don't think that they asserted that another group worshiped YHWH. I don't know where that comes from. Again, the Soleb YHWH wasn't written by Hebrews, and the Egyptians didn't worship YHWH. Many ancient civilizations speak about other cultures by using what gods they worship. It is constant in ancient writing. The library of Nineveh speaks of other culture's gods.
Even slightly older than 1360-1370? Stripling tries to redate all of Adam Zertal's work by this little pennant. Not withstanding a Ramesis II scarab was found at Ebal. Plus, all the pottery that dated to late 13th Century. Is he saying Ramesis II was 15th Century? Gershon Galil thinks it is 1200 BC, van der Veer sides with David Rohl's dating of Exodus and thinks it 1400 BC. With a 1400 BC dating of the tablet doesn't help put the Exodus date at the early date. It does cloud when YHW was first encountered. Was it in Avaris or in Midian or Sier? It doesn't put YWH together with Joshua in 1400 BC, but verifies Ebal as happening in 1200 BC. With maybe a 200 year old tablet somehow showing up there.
@@501Mobius It is calculated by the reign of Solomon. I'd have to go back and look at the text, but it does calculate out to 1,430BC, or something like that.
@@Drakemiser There are a lot of archaeological factors that point to the late date. 1. The research by Adam Zertal puts the Ebal lowest altar date to around 1200 BC along with a Rameses II scarab found there. 2. The Amarna Letters has Egypt in control of from Syria to the Sinai during 1360 - 1333 BC. 4. Merneptah stele 1208 BC mentions Israel. 5. The Architecture of Imperialism by Morris describes the fortifications and structures in the Levant controlled by Egypt 1400 BC to around 1200 BC. 6. Two scarabs of Amenhotep III (ruled ca. 1391-1354 BC) found in tombs buried under ruins at Jericho.
“ he believes “ says it all. That is not history my friend. We need hard facts and not “ we asume” , “ we think” , “ probably “, bla bla bla ….hard facts man are needed!
Go look at an image. This is nothing. There aren't any scientists in a credible field that say it's even a language. Micro scratches is all it is and this guy is a fraud. Which is why they really didn't want to show an image lol
The other documents were written during Biblical times as well. I'm not a scholar, but I'm skeptical because of the people who have tried to deny God throughout history in different ways. I believe they are under the influence of the enemy. Also, speaking from the viewpoint of a non scholar, you sound like you are speaking in circles. I'm don't know what you are trying to tell us. I hope you post a link to the location of your articles. (A final note, people communicated in symbols before they had letters. Why would Abraham, Moses, et all be any different? Also, how could Moses be raised as a Prince, & not be educated?)
I think I would be more excited if he were to be digging on the "blessing" hill and revealed to the world a "blessing tablet". In this day and age of the present state of the world, the revealing of a curse tablet doesn't seem to me to bode well for us....
Remember when Dr Evans blurted out his DSS stuff on Dr McDowell's channel instead of in a peer-reviewed journal? Well, Dr Stripling's a notch higher: at least he announced it in a journal (even if that journal only has an IF of 2.8). Bravo?
Thanks for the info on the Impact factor score a 2.8 is pathetic but Christian apologists don’t care! The sheep just want reassurance and for that they will pay $$$$
OMG I’m an English major and seminary student for a Masters in Biblical and Theological Studies and totally nerding out at 16:00. I want to be him when I grow up, if I can get through Hebrew 2.
Sorry Christians it’s not an archeological journal! 😢😢😢 The problem with apologetics is now you can actually check out claims. Another “First Century Mark” I suspect!😢
Some of the criticisms of this find are rife with bias; e.g. the long held presupposition that Hebrew did not exist as a written language until the 900's or even 800's BC so "this couldn't possibly be Hebrew". This objection like many others, is biased circular reasoning at its worst. Then there is the one argument that has some merit; i.e. what if these are just random marks made by nature? Let's assume they are random marks. That still doesn't answer the question as to how a MAN MADE lead curse tablet, mined from Greece and CUT AND FORMED FOR SAID PURPOSE with NO WRITING etched into it, ended up on Mt. Ebal in the first place. WHY there? If it's not Israelite then it would have to be Canaanite. Did the Canaanites worship their pagan gods at this site? If so, was it a regular pratice for them to use curse tablets at such a site? Why is there no writing on it? Was it accidently dropped there and lost? There's another claim that it could be Canaanite script but that still doesn't answer the questions I've raised. It in fact raises MORE questions. It's very frustrating is that nobody is hitting the critics with these kinds of questions.
No, the only people who actually agree with the findings of the article are the people who worked on it and Douglas Petrovich. Van der Veen, one of the articles epigraphers, doesn’t even agree with a lot of it. Israel will not be using it as evidence for that.
There’s plenty of evidence against the DH. This tablet doesn’t really affect it even if true. The only people who actually agree with the findings of the article are the people who worked on it and Douglas Petrovich. Van der Veen, one of the articles epigraphers, doesn’t even agree with a lot of it.
The idea that the word for God and the name of one would dismantle the DH is irrational. The different habitual use of a particular name or title for the deity of the stories is used as a marker for different authors, but that does not preclude the one who preferred the name from occasionally adding the title. This could more readily be excused as a third author rather than claiming that the two (or perhaps 4 or more) were actually the same person.
@@TheLookingGlassAU The essence of the DH is that there were multiple authors of the Torah. One of the distinguishing characteristics is the choice of words- especially how the supreme being is referenced. The claim that this (bogus) piece of metal challenges the DH is the claimed appearance of two of the different styles of reference with the unjustified conclusion that the same person could have written the two different styles in the Torah. Besides there not actually being any writing on the dingus, and that even the imagined letters are not in any kind of order (Stripling et al. have it spiraling and zigzagging which is unlike any other known-to-be-written document ever), the words are El and YHW, not Elohim and YHWH.
@@histreeonics7770 there is a dating element of the DH as well. If you want to disagree with things or critique things you needs to be darn sure you know what you're talking about otherwise your just telegraphing to everyone that nobody should take you seriously. I can't take you seriously because you speak without a basic understanding of what you're talking about. It all just emotion.
Magog, the winter sun, is borrowed from the Hindu Maha Bhaga (Vishnu). See Isaiah 9.14-15, where Israel (summer) is depicted as the four signs of Leo, Virgo, Libra, and Scorpio.
I think this finding will put another nail, or perhaps a jack-hammer, into the coffin of the traditional Documentary Hypothesis, along with some other academic theories.
I don't see how, since the points Stripling raises to counter the Documentary Hypothesis are basically irrelevant. And that is setting aside the monumental epigraphic issues with his reading of the tablet.
@@DrKippDavis Well the classic Graf-Wellhausen thing thought the Pentateuch was put together in Babylon, partly because Moses, if real, would not be able to write at that time. There may be different sources but much nearer to or co-incident with the Exodus.
@Chris Owen that was 150 years ago. Biblical scholarship has come a long way since Wellhousen, and in all that time the needle has not moved any closer to traditional views of the Bible. The modern version of the Documentary Hypothesis is completely unaffected by this. If anything, the current trend within the field is actually moving progressively more and more in the direction of thinking that the Torah and the Deuteronomistic History at least were entirely produced no earlier than the Persian period. Even if Stripling's reading of this curse tablet were legitimate (it's not), that would do almost nothing to shift the current consensus.
The only people who actually agree with the findings of the article are the people who worked on it and Douglas Petrovich. Van der Veen, one of the articles epigraphers, doesn’t even agree with a lot of it. It has to actually be legit before we can make any conclusions from it.
God obviously withheld this find for a time such as this! (the previous dry sift and newly developed technology of a wet sift) A Christian nation has turned its back on God ( the 10 commandments) and is now seeing the results of the curse. (Romans 1)
You.... might want to look into how this "finding" has been received by the experts. Basically this is just a big lie. Don't trust people with such poor motivations that they will break the law and do "secret" findings please. No credible epigrapher is saying this is human writing. Just scratched in metal like you would see on any scrap metal.
You are being silly here. A nation of Christians is not necessarily a Christian nation, especially when its founders tried to prevent that from happening. People in the USA are turning their backs on churches, on religious organizations more than on God, simply exposing that many church goers were never actually believers. -- The societies which most closely follow the 10 commandments are those run by Islamic fundamentalists. If you think that type of society is good apply for citizenship in Saudi Arabia.
The Bible is the only religious book that has been proven accurate time after time by science and archaeology for thousands of years! God is real and Christ is real! I’m sure most people watching this video are Believers, but if you’re not please people accept Christ as your Lord and Savior while you still can!
I am not a believer. I watched this video, and I consider the claims made about this supposed curse tablet to be reaching at best, and completely misleading at worst.
It is a flat out lie that the Bible has been proven accurate, much less 'time after time'. Most of it is too vague to be proven accurate, some of that which is capable of such proof has been shown to be wrong (details of Nebuchnezzars reign in Daniel) based on mundane government records of the actual time of the story. I do not accept any lord, and I am not in need of being saved other than from fundamentalists trying to gain secular power with which they will make their fellow man suffer.
Yahweh was adopted (from the broader Levantine polytheism). Let that sink in. YHWH Yahweh was just YHW Yaw on the Mt Ebal curse tablet. Oldest Yahweh inscription ever found. So, in English, he's "the LOR your God" haha. Tetragrammaton was Trigrammaton...duuumb. End of the Baal Cycle he was Baal-Yaw. At the start of the Baal Cycle he was Baal-Yam. Baal is a title meaning Lord. Yam means Sea. Yam was called the Twisting Serpent. Sea Beasts are Yam Beasts (aspects of the plurality that is Baal-Yam) and were called Lotan (biblical Leviathan) and seven-headed Tannin (who gets one of his heads fatally wounded; see Rev 13: 1-3). Yam (Sea) was a tyrant who got kicked out of Heaven (off Heavenly Mt Saphon) by the good Lord Hadad. Don't confuse Baal-Hadad, who was from Ugarit and Aleppo, with the Lords of Sidon (where Jezebel was a Princess) and Tyre in the Jezebel vs Elijah story in the Bible. Both Jezebel, who was representing the Lord or Lords (Baals) of Sidon and Tyre, and Elijah, who was representing Yahwism from Edom and Seir (see Baalam's prophecies), were awful for Israel. Two thumbs down. Canaanites are Israelites. Yahweh from Genesis 2 is that ancient serpent called the Devil and Satan. (not to be confused with God "Elohim" or Spirit of God "Ruach Elohim" from Genesis 1) Bronze Age Israel 🇮🇱 > Iron Age Israel 🇮🇱. (Canaan)
