Talk:Mount Ebal

Inline User Comment

After the second paragraph of the Biblical Account section, the following user-comment was added:

The following section appears to have been based on the work of people who explicitly deny the accuracy of the Bible. May we ask that other scholars' works be included and integrated for a more balanced entry? Remember the criticism of the 19th Century that was based on not having found any Hittites?

I removed the comment, and have listed it here where it should have been written. — al-Shimoni (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

3,200 old Biblical inscription

In Match 2022, it was discovered, at the site, a 3,200 old ancient Hebrew Biblical inscription from Deuteronomy 27:15-16 (based).

References

Lol. That's even worse. The Jpost makes it clear it's the creationist "Associates for Biblical Research" that are making this claim. Useless for Wikipedia, Conservapedia would probably accept it. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Truth3v3r: pinging the editor who wrote the above. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not just the creationists of "Associates for Biblical Research" who have made this claim. See the article by Haaretz (a newspaper which is far from fundamentalist) on the discoverment HERE. Actually, the decipherment of the text of the amulet was done by more reputed scholars and epigraphers like Pieter Gert van der Veen (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz) and Gershon Galil (University of Haifa).

I agree we should wait until their results are published and discussed in peer-reviewed articles, but we shouldn't disregard them only because some fundamentalists were present in the announcement. Potatín5 (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Just for information. https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-early-israelite-curse-inscription-found-on-mt-ebal-1.10696926 I thought that this was quite a well balanced source, with plenty of caveats around what this 'curse' might indicate. Pngeditor (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5 and Pngeditor: thanks. May I ask how you arrived here? Nice to see you anyway. The Haaretz article looks interesting but I note that at the end it asserts ' even earlier, in the land of Israel itself, possibly dating to the Late Bronze Age, the divine name". Unlike the JPost article it doesn't call it Hebrew but Proto-Canaanite, called that because it was found in Canaan. "Land of Israel" is a very politically charged name. And if it is as early as the ABR claims, it won't have been the Jewish God but Yahweh, who was originally a "divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman"., then became of one of the gods worshipped in Israel (as a storm-god it seems), and of course when monotheism developed the only god. So we need the discussion mentioned by Potatin5 first. I'm trying to write an article about nationalism and archaeology and this sort of thing is an example - building an origin story through archaeology. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(To dear Doug Weller, with all due respect, what does all that opinion have to do with the text being based on Deuteronmy? Is the Bible "politically charged"?) To all, I specifically avoided a conservative source such as https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/tablet-with-gods-name-biblical-curse-discovered-on-curse-mount-ebal-in-samaria/2022/03/25/ , but chose Ynet, the lefty, yet, it was removed. I posted JPost, which is mainstream, it was removed too. Now, even anti-Jewish / anti-Judaism "israeli" Haaretz (not much respected in its own country anymore since around 2000, but quoted by all neo-Nazi sites, not just on wiki. Unreliable Haaretz often posts differently in Ebglish for obvious sneaky dishonest reasons) reported this. What is wrong with this historical fact? Who is offended by it? Where is that open mindness???Truth3v3r (talk)

I see no historical fact. If you don’t understand why some biblical archaeology is political you may have problems. Bottom line though is we need academic sources, eg peer reviewed studies. Doug Weller talk 21:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I read Haaretz, and went to see what was on wikipedia when I read this article. I thought that the Hebrew source in this article, (can't remember but I think it was Ynet) was a bit biased, as it used the term Hebrew, rather than proto cannanite, and it seemed to imply that the tablet and the translation were proven to be true, rather than still to be peer reviewed. I came here to use the source I provided as a replacement, and found that the whole reference had been removed, so I left my note in case it it was useful. I absolutely take your point about the political or nationalist use of Biblical Archeology, however I thought that a sort of 'jury's out' mention of this find with plenty of caveats would be ok. Happy as you say to wait for further developments.Pngeditor (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear Doug Weller, I asked you about the text which is based in Deuteronomy 27:15-16.Truth3v3r (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, but neither of the sources used appear to be listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources; so, I am a bit confused. Please explain further? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. As this is a great exceptional claim: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" so it would be best to wait for the article. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW, that OTHER issue, of "reliable source" thing. I Googled it up, how and by who (old-timers here) it is really being "decided" it on wiki. 'Nuff said. That wasn't the issue here.Truth3v3r (talk)

Unlike some press reports, the Haaretz article expresses caution on all of the main points: the age, the translation, and the language. Galil is known for calling anything in early Canaanite "Hebrew"; for sure that is going to be challenged. The age will be challenged too, because the usual dating method (the exact place in the ground it was found and what else was nearby in the same layer) is not available. Isotope analysis may reveal where the lead was mined, but lead is very stable and (correct me if I'm wrong) can't be directly dated. That leaves the script, which will certainly be challenged. I think we should leave this alone until there is a publication plus expert commentary on it. Zero^talk 04:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Well said. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Also interesting is this TimesofIsrael article, although it still states as fact that "Hebrews" entered the "Holy Land".[1]. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

And this by an expert although one who thinks there was some sort of Exodus.[2]. Doug Weller talk 09:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Now at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Ebal curse tablet. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Haaretzism's radicalism is famous.. the term "cautions" isn't applicable.

Conclusion since the "LOL" and the term "worse" on Jpost. As if something over here is "bad." And googling who is active here...

1. Fanacism and extremism are not limited to one side. 2. An inditect admission that the objection is motivated by one political side abd not a moderate one at that.Truth3v3r (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This editor is using this discussion as a reason to vote Keep at the AfD. And User:Truth3v3r what in the world do you mean by "googling who is active here"? Doug Weller talk 14:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Another progressive site, Mako, wrote about it:

https://www.mako.co.il/hix-history/Article-f1a1d0a375cbf71027.htm Truth3v3r (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question about Googling. And that site ends with ""The importance of this finding to the people of Israel for its generations and to the State of Israel cannot be overstated," says Yossi Dagan, head of the Samaria Regional Council. "We received a greeting from Joshua Ben-Nun, and from the people of Israel in the biblical period, further proof of the inseparable connection between the people of Israel and Samaria and the Land of Israel." That's a political statement. No admission that Creationists are involved. No mention of Finkelstein. Your definition of progressive is odd. Doug Weller talk 05:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

No one connected it to the conflict in the middle East. Until it was you who did it here and on my talk page, so desperately. However, when I mentioned, Haaretz's it was not because its lroblem is left or right, but pure hatred.

MK Moshe Abutbul: Hopefully now Nehemiah Shtrasler has calmed down (Kol HaZman, March 29, 2022) Hours before the attack in Bnei Brak: a venomous and hallucinatory headline in Haaretz (Behadrei, March 30, 2022) And ICYMI, again, is Deuteronomy and text based on it "political"?Truth3v3r (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Your repeated non sequitur references to the attack at Bnei Brak implicitly makes it political. Dumuzid (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Dumuzid, I wasn't referring to the attack itself but to the blind hatred by the hateful Haaretz 9 hours BEFORE the attack. Check again and you will see it is detached from the middle east conflict. Thanks.Truth3v3r (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Truth3v3r -- I am willing to assume your good faith here, but with all due respect, I don't think this line of argumentation gets you anywhere and it feels like you are bringing a political valence to the issue, but perhaps others disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear Dumuzid, at least regarding you, I don't think you post here in coordination with another...cheers.Truth3v3r (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Truth3v3rł: who are you accusing of exactly what violations of policy? Doug Weller talk 11:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Fix ping @Truth3v3r: Doug Weller talk 11:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Upon or In?

The article states: "the law of Moses was written onto the stones." Should that be changed to "cut into the stones"? Incidentally I ask if the alleged Altar of Joshua, has any sign of the Law of Moses written on it or carved into it? The discovery of Joshua's ancient copy of the Law of Moses would be the greatest archaeological discover of all time. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

As to the former question, I prefer "written upon" simply because it more closely mirrors the Hebrew -- the verb is clearly "writing" (kaf-tav-bet) and the preposition is clearly "on" or "upon" (ayin-lamed). While I tend to agree the sense is likely "cut into," the text says what it says. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Ebal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090629062617/http://research.haifa.ac.il/~archlgy/staff/cv_zertal.html to http://research.haifa.ac.il/~archlgy/staff/cv_zertal.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

A critique from Israel Finkelstein

[3] Doug Weller talk 19:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)…

And one from Christopher Rollston. Zero^talk 05:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Another.[4]. I can't find his full statement unfortunately. Doug Weller talk 06:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Also one from James R. Davila here/ Kershatz (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I listened to the original press conference here. It is clear that they don't have firm dating. At first mention the evidence is "consistent" with a 1200 BCE date, then over a few sentences that becomes the firm date. Not impressive. But the creationist guys are positively cautious compared to Gershon Galil, who says it is the most important inscription ever found, proves when the Bible was written, and so on. Anyone clever enough to write these four words, he claims, was clever enough to write the whole Hebrew Bible. Wow. Zero^talk 11:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s on his Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/Prof.IsraelFinkelstein/ Doug Weller talk 09:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)