BIBLE HISTORY DAILY

Too Good to Be True? Not Necessarily So!

Rollston ignores context of “sensational” inscriptions

“Too Good to Be True?” from the Fall 2024 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, with the fragmentary “Hezekiah” inscription at left. Courtesy Biblical Archaeology Society.

In his recent Biblical Archaeology Review article, “Too Good to Be True? Reckoning with Sensational Inscriptions,” epigrapher Christopher Rollston takes to task several recent studies of apparent paleo-Hebrew and proto-Canaanite inscriptions and criticizes some of his fellow epigraphers (myself included) for reading too much into these badly damaged and/or questionable texts. Although I agree with some of his points, with others I clearly cannot. Below I consider two of the texts discussed by Rollston in his article.

FREE ebook: Ten Top Biblical Archaeology Discoveries. Finds like the Pool of Siloam in Israel, where the Gospel of John says Jesus miraculously restored sight to a blind man.

First Name:*

Last Name:*

Email Address: * * Indicates a required field.

SUBMIT

If you don’t want to receive the Bible History Daily newsletter, uncheck this box.

The “Hezekiah” Inscription

Scholars Gershon Galil and Eli Shukron recently suggested that a fragmentary inscribed slab found in 2008 in the City of David should read, “Hezekiah made the pool in Jerusalem.”[i] In his article, Rollston objects to this seemingly logical reconstruction of an admittedly poorly preserved inscription. In particular, he notes, “The scholars propose to restore two thirds of the root letters of the name ‘Hezekiah’ (i.e. het [sic] and zayin) and two thirds of the root letters of the word ‘pool’ (bet and resh)” (emphasis added).” Rollston’s claim that two thirds of the root letters have been reconstructed is an overstatement, as the entire personal name (including the theophoric element) matters. Consequently, half of the letters in the name [Ḥz]qyh[w] can still be clearly read. If the final waw of the theophoric element was never written (as both Galil and Rollston suggest), even more than half of the letters are present. Moreover, the horizontal strokes of the letter zayin on the right edge of the slab may still be there too.[ii] Similarly, in the inscription’s second line, half (rather than only a third) of the letters for “pool” ([br]kh) still exist. Finally, although Galil’s and Shukron’s restoration of “Jerusalem” after the word-divider and letter bet (Hebrew “in”) is speculative guesswork, it is nonetheless a logical deduction.

What is more, the inscription’s archaeological context makes the proposed reading less surprising than Rollston would have us believe. The inscription was found near the rock-cut pool of the Gihon Spring with pottery and bullae dating from the time of Hezekeiah (late eighth and early seventh centuries BCE).[iii] Unlike Rollston, who pays little attention to archaeological context, I believe provenanced epigraphic material must be studied according to its stratigraphic context. As such, even if the reading is speculative, knowing that the inscription comes from the area of the Gihon Spring and was found with other material from the time of Hezekiah makes it reasonable to suggest it was associated with his reign.

Different views of the exterior of the lead strip from Mt. Ebal. Photo by the Associates for Biblical Research.

The Mt. Ebal Lead Strip

Rollston’s article also features a rather wanting discussion of the Mt. Ebal “inscription.” He specifically targets Gershon Galil’s interpretation of the folded lead strip’s interior inscription, which was revealed through tomographic digital imaging (I consciously avoid using the word “tablet” to describe this object). Galil identified 48 paleo-Hebrew letters that he believes can be read as a short curse inscription invoking the Israelite God Yahweh. First, even in the initial publication of the inscription, Scott Stripling and I already criticized our co-author’s reading and, therefore, presented separate tables that give what we consider to be more accurate representations of the visible letters (Rollston conveniently overlooks this fact in his article).[iv] But given the evidence from the tomographic scans, as well as bulges detected on the back side of the strip, we believe that some letters and words do exist, including the divine name YHW. It should also be remembered that Rollston’s claim that the interior incisions are mere “random scratches, striations, pitting, and indentations” is not based on direct study of the object. Of course, there are bumps and scratches (what else would we expect after some 3,000 years?), but raised edges and tool marks indicate genuine human writing. Stripling and I plan to publish this evidence and more about the strip’s inscription in the near future.

The article also dismisses our interpretation of the lead strip by citing Amihai Mazar’s recent Israel Exploration Journal article, which suggests the object was a folded fishing weight or sinker.[v] But this claim is more apparent than real. No fishing weights have ever been found in the central highlands, and the closest parallels Mazar cites come largely from outside the Levant. He also cites two questionable parallels from Gaza (also on the coast), while  other similar types are all from sites along the coast, including Ashkelon, Deir el-Balah, Akhziv, and Aphek. Finally, it should be noted that the Mt. Ebal strip lacks a sinker hole through which a thin rope or cord could have passed. Hence, nothing suggests the strip was actually a fishing weight.

Ed. Note: Articles on Bible History Daily may reference sites or artifacts from contested, annexed, or occupied regions, which may be subject to international laws and conventions on the protection of cultural property.

Pieter Gert van der Veen is Reader of Levantine Archaeology at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany. He is an epigrapher of ancient Hebrew inscriptions and he specializes on the chronological significance of stratified finds (including inscribed seals and bullae) from late Iron Age Israel and Jordan.

Notes

[i] See David Shishkoff, “Bible’s Reliability Further Affirmed as King Hezekiah Inscription Deciphered,” Israel Today (online), November 8, 2022. Importantly, variations of this reading were already published by the original excavators and others, myself included. See Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron, “A Fragmentary Palaeo-Hebrew Inscription from the City of David, Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal 58.1 (2008), pp. 48–50; Pieter van der Veen, “König Hiskia in einer neuen Inschrift aus Jerusalem?” Studium Integrale Journal 16:1 (2009), pp. 51–52; and Hershel Shanks, “A Tiny Piece of the Puzzle,” Biblical Archaeology Review, March/April 2009.

[ii] Admittedly, the stance of the zayin would seem to be somewhat surprising, as the letter would then appear to tilt forward. Yet this type of zayin is not impossible and, in general, letter forms and stances (even at the time of Hezekiah) sometimes differ from one another.

[iii] Pieter van der Veen, Dating the Iron Age IIB Archaeological Horizon in Israel and Judah (Münster: Zaphon, 2020), esp. pp. 19–27.

[iv] Scott Stripling et al., “‘You are Cursed by the God YHW’: An Early Hebrew Inscription from Mt. Ebal,” Heritage Science 11.105 (2023), pp. 1–24. See especially pp. 11–14, 16, 18–20 for the relevant tables.

[v] Amihai Mazar, “The Lead Object from Mount Ebal as a Fishing-Net Sinker,” Israel Exploration Journal 73.2 (2023), pp. 143–152.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

An Early Israelite Curse Inscription from Mt. Ebal?

Hook, Line, and Sinker: Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet Debunked?

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Two Early Israelite Cult Sites Now Questioned

Has Joshua’s Altar Been Found on Mt. Ebal?