The Curse Text of Mount Ebal: Comparisons with Other Ancient Curses

The Curse Text of Mount Ebal is an ancient inscription found in the region of modern-day Israel. It was discovered in the late 19th century and is believed to date back to the 13th century BC. The inscription consists of a series of curses written in the Canaanite language. The Curse Text of Mount Ebal is significant because it provides valuable insights into the religious beliefs and practices of the ancient Canaanites. It was found near the site of an ancient Israelite altar, suggesting that it may have played a role in religious rituals. The curses listed in the inscription are directed towards anyone who disobeys the commandments and laws of the Canaanite gods.

The curses listed in the inscription are directed towards anyone who disobeys the commandments and laws of the Canaanite gods. They include curses upon anyone who steals, commits adultery, or shows disrespect towards elders. The curses also extend to those who fail to take care of the poor and the weak.

The Mount Ebal ‘Curse Tablet’ Finally Published: First Impressions

T he much anticipated Mount Ebal “curse tablet” was finally published last Friday, May 12, in the open-access peer-reviewed journal Heritage Science (read the article here). The miniature folded lead tablet, having been initially presented in a lively press release just over a year ago, had generated a huge amount of interest.

The defixio, or “curse tablet,” was discovered in 2019 by Dr. Scott Stripling’s team while they were sifting the excavation dumps of the “Joshua’s altar” site at Mount Ebal. The discovery quickly made headlines around the world—small wonder, given the very identification of the site as the “mount of cursing” described in the biblical account (Deuteronomy 11, 27, and Joshua 8), the proximity of the find to a structure identified as “Joshua’s altar,” and the dating of the artifact to this very time frame in early Israel’s history (more on this further down).

Along with the discovery of the artifact, a preliminary deciphering of the text contained within was announced at the press release last year. The folded, delicate nature of the tablet had made it too risky for the researchers to try to open it (after a failed test of malleability resulted in one of the corners breaking off); as such, tomographic scans were performed in order to try to “see” the text contained within. A formulaic inscription was presented to the public, reading as follows:

Cursed, cursed, cursed—cursed by the God yhw

You will die cursed

Cursed you will surely die

Cursed by yhw —cursed, cursed, cursed.

The press release generated a great deal of excitement—and controversy. This was, of course, primarily due to the magnitude of the conclusions, against the backdrop of not having first been presented in a peer-reviewed journal (a reason for this is noted in the above-linked article)—and also, due to a lack of imagery of the actual inscription text provided at the press release.

Nonetheless, we highlighted the sentiment at the time of expert epigrapher Dr. Haggai Misgav, who wrote on Facebook (translated from Hebrew): “I haven’t seen pictures of the find …. Whatever I don’t see with my own eyes—as a researcher—I don’t have anything to say. Nothing about the find, nothing about the reading, nothing about its interpretation. Research requires responsibility; not to assert what is uncertain, certainly not to say what you don’t know, and not to come out immediately in dismissal.”

Well, it’s finally arrived—at least, the interpretation of part of the four-sided inscription (the inner part—a future publication of the outer inscription is promised in the article). The article contains a significant amount of especially interesting and critical information relating to the find’s context, as well as methodology in attempting to digitally “unwrap” and read this otherwise closed lead tablet.

Naturally, most of the anticipation for the peer-reviewed article built up around the exact content of the inscription. But unfortunately, rather than the imagery presented clearing up much of the doubt and confusion, just the opposite appears to be the case. Since publication, there have been a range of reactions to the interpretation of the tablet’s content. From Prof. Douglas Petrovich expressing his support for one of the lead epigraphers (who, according to the paper, “deciphered most of the interior letters”):

To Dr. Peter Williams’s cautious optimism about the interpretation:

To Dr. Yonatan Adler’s less-than-veiled suspicion:

To Dr. Gad Barnea’s accusations of “outright deception” and push for retraction from the journal:

If you haven’t yet read the peer-reviewed article, I’d encourage you to do so. Central to this reaction is the highly interpretive, apparently garbled spread of text. It’s not what perhaps most may have expected—a simple text reading dextrograde (left-right), sinistrograde (right-left), boustrophedon (alternating “as the ox plows”), or even up or down—rather, a general discombobulation of letters of different sizes, orientations and shapes, spread over the tablet. To this end, where some see letters, others don’t see them at all (or at least, not anywhere near the totality presented), instead seeing cracks or fissures in the lead tablet.

Of course, examination via scanning of the interior of a folded and deformed tablet (lead, no less!) has its limitations, as Dr. Williams sympathizes:

Not to mention the tiny size of the artifact, and thus the difficulty in engraving much of anything of great substance or precision within.

It has been interesting to see the differences of opinion expressed among the contributors. As one of the epigraphers who authored the article, Dr. Peter van der Veen, commented recently on Facebook: “[W]e were several scholars within the team, scholars with different opinions seeking to meet in the middle in terms of dating questions, the direction of writing, let alone the identity of some of the lesser well detectable letters found in the inner central fold. While I was much more concerned about the reading of some letters, others were less. …

[I]f one comes up with a better reading, so be it. That’s the way good scholarship functions. This surely was an initial reading, nevertheless after having studied these very complicated scans over a period of almost six months. The basic reading was then confirmed by a) letters detected on the recto of the tablet, so clearly seen on the high resolution photos (they have clearly been incised by a stylus as the incisions prove), and b) bulges of the letters of the inside inscription seen on the verso.

“We do not however claim (at least I don’t) to have deciphered the inscription correctly everywhere,” he continues in another recent post, “but after so many months of intensive research, we do feel that this initial reading (which deals predominantly with the inner inscription; a separate article will appear in the future on the outer inscription, but see already Tables 10 and 11 on p. 20) comes close to reality.” To which Dr. Lawson Stone commented: “It’s good for the scholarly world to see that even conservative scholars debate and disagree on various points, that we do not march in lock-step.”

Dr. van der Veen also addressed one particular criticism that has emerged, regarding the choice to publish in SpringerOpen’s Heritage Science: that this was an attempt to avoid proper scrutiny before publication, as some have pointed out that it is “not a journal that specializes in archaeology, much less epigraphy.” Dr. van der Veen writes: “The reason why we chose Heritage Science, I have explained on my FB site. The work was not merely epigraphic in nature (otherwise we could have chosen a journal like Semitica or MAARAV or you name them, if our tomographic colleagues had not been totally opposed to that idea), but also mainly so scientific tomography. The Springer Nature journals are the crème de la crème for scientific research.” Indeed, the tomographic scanning was a particularly unique feature of the research of this artifact.

It will be interesting to see how things shake down. The perspective of esteemed epigrapher Prof. Christopher Rollston (who presented his thoughts on the matter last year) seems to be highly anticipated by observers. Of course, there is also the forthcoming publication of the outer inscription on the tablet. Professor Galil also informs, via a Facebook post of his own, that Hebrew University metallurgy expert Prof. Naama Yahalom-Mack will also be publishing a separate paper on the provenance of the tablet lead, “which she determined to have originated from Lavrion, in Greece, and dated to the Late Bronze Age.”

So we’ll see how all of this unfolds. Some may accept the conclusions of the current paper in their entirety; some have concluded that there’s nothing to see at all. Based on what I’ve read of the paper, and the degree of ambiguity, I tend to agree for now with the following comments made by Prof. Benjamin Kilchör some months ago (here responding in the context of the delay in the publication of the report):

But individual interpretations/impressions aside, it’s good to zoom out and get the big picture. Followers of this website will know that we featured the tablet at the top of our list of “top finds” in biblical archaeology from 2022. Debate surrounding the text notwithstanding, we would do the same again.

Why? Any significance of this discovery is not just contingent upon the nature of the text within. Interpretation of the text to one side, what we have here is clearly a defixio—an example of a typical sealed/folded thin lead tablet well known in association with curses. It was found, not coincidentally, on the biblical “mount of cursing” associated with Joshua and the early Israelites—Mount Ebal. Further, it was found at the very site identified as Joshua’s altar (among a significant quantity of animal bones—96% of which were from kosher animals, and the remaining being from “snake, tortoise, etc”).

Yes, the tablet was not found in situ, in a sealed layer during excavation—it was sifted by Stripling’s team out of the excavation dumps from the structure, left behind by the late Prof. Adam Zertal (who, together with his associate Zvi Koenigsberg, were the first to identify the altar structure, in 1983). Nevertheless, as highlighted in the article, given that 99.75% of the diagnostic pottery sherds from the dumps dated to the Late Bronze ii– Iron i periods (circa 1400–1000 b.c.e. )—and given that the Lavrion mine, from which the tablet’s lead was sourced, was also in operation during the Late Bronze Age—it follows that the tablet most logically dates to within this early, pre-monarchical period: the very time frame associated with Joshua, the conquest of the Promised Land, and the “curse” ritual upon Mount Ebal. (There’s also an additional fascinating link to Job 19:28, a passage which describes the practice of writing “with an iron pen and lead”; note that chronologically, Job is among the earliest books in the Bible.)

Particulars regarding the inscription aside (and it is, at the very least, objectively clear that there is something written on/in it), it is surely not an overstatement to say that the above facts stand alone as remarkable parallels, and from such an early period—one comparatively less highlighted in biblical archaeological research and reporting.

So, we await with anticipation the follow-up papers and watch with keen interest as the debate takes shape regarding this interpretation of the inscription. But suffice it to say, it’s only one side to what has already been a fascinating, extremely consequential and multi-faceted discovery for the world of biblical archaeology. Yes, it is a frustratingly enigmatic piece, and it’s probably wishful thinking to hope for any sort of consensus about its contents. Unless, of course, we throw caution to the wind, admit that there’s nothing more we can glean from it remaining closed, and like the silver Ketef Hinnom scrolls, take the risk of cracking it open entirely.

Then again, it is a curse tablet …

Well, it’s finally arrived—at least, the interpretation of part of the four-sided inscription (the inner part—a future publication of the outer inscription is promised in the article). The article contains a significant amount of especially interesting and critical information relating to the find’s context, as well as methodology in attempting to digitally “unwrap” and read this otherwise closed lead tablet.

The Curse Text of Mount Ebal reflects the general belief in ancient civilizations that disobedience to the gods or breaking the law would result in divine punishment. By listing specific curses, the inscription sought to instill fear and reinforce the importance of following religious and moral codes. The inscription is also significant because it provides evidence of the use of writing in the ancient Near East. While oral traditions were prevalent during this time, the presence of written curses suggests a desire to make them more permanent and enforceable. In conclusion, the Curse Text of Mount Ebal provides valuable insights into the religious beliefs and practices of the ancient Canaanites. It demonstrates their belief in divine punishment for disobedience and highlights the significance of religious and moral codes in ancient societies. The inscription also sheds light on the use of writing in the ancient Near East..

Reviews for "Decoding the Curse Text of Mount Ebal: Transcriptions and Interpretations"

1. Emma - 1/5 - I was really disappointed with "Curse text of mount ebal". The storyline was confusing and all over the place, with no clear direction. The characters were poorly developed, and I found it difficult to connect with any of them. The writing itself was also quite weak, lacking depth and emotion. Overall, I struggled to get through this book and would not recommend it.

2. John - 2/5 - I had high hopes for "Curse text of mount ebal", but unfortunately, it fell short of my expectations. The plot had potential, but it became convoluted and hard to follow. The pacing was uneven, with slow and uninteresting periods followed by rushed and chaotic scenes. The dialogue felt forced and unrealistic, making it difficult to engage with the characters. The ending was also unsatisfying and left many loose ends. Overall, I found this book to be a disappointment.

3. Sarah - 2/5 - "Curse text of mount ebal" started off promising, but it quickly lost my interest. The writing style was confusing and excessively flowery, making it hard to understand what was happening. The characters lacked depth and seemed one-dimensional. I found myself not caring about their fate or their actions. The overall execution of the story fell short, and I struggled to stay engaged. I wouldn't recommend this book to others.

4. Michael - 1/5 - "Curse text of mount ebal" was a complete letdown. The plot was disjointed and confusing, jumping from one event to another without proper explanation. The characters were unremarkable and lacked any real personality. The writing was also subpar, with numerous grammatical errors and awkward sentence structures. Overall, I found this book to be a waste of time and would not recommend it to anyone.

The Curse Text of Mount Ebal: Insights into Ancient Hebrew Attitudes and Beliefs