I read with interest Amanda Hope Haley’s recent article entitled “Big Digs, Bad Detectives” in Christianity Today. Pseudoarcheology is a problem, and I hoped this article would address it. After all, no archaeologist believes Noah’s ark or giant skeletons have been found or that supposed chariot wheels at the bottom of the Gulf of Aqaba have anything to do with the Israelite crossing of the “Red” Sea. Instead of warning CT readers about red herrings like this, Amanda chose two examples about which archaeologists remain divided.
First, she took to task Agatha Christie and her husband Max Mallowan for agreeing with the renowned Sir Leonard Wooley that the city of Ur was in southern Mesopotamia. Amanda authoritatively writes that “the archaeologists were wrong.” She even raises the possibility that they knew Ur was not in Mesopotamia but still deliberately propagated the idea. Her placement of Ur in southern Turkey is nowhere near a consensus view. In fact, most archaeologists would disagree with Amanda.
Second, she used the lead tablet from Mt. Ebal as an example of making unfounded claims about artifacts substantiating or illuminating the biblical text. While Amanda does not mention me by name, I am the excavator and the head of the international consortium that studied the artifact and held the press conference which caused her dismay. Amanda states that no epigraphers were present at the press conference. In fact, Peter van der Veen and Gershon Galil, my colleagues who joined me at the press conference, are both epigraphers with extensive publications. Epigrapher Daniela Urbanova was not present, but she also collaborated with us and identified ancient writing on the tablet. Furthermore, Amanda fails to mention that I published the results in Heritage Science, a highly rated peer-reviewed journal, with a highly qualified interdisciplinary team. Why omit this? It is true that many scholars disagree with our findings. However, many other scholars agree with us. Almost all inscriptions undergo such scrutiny. At least a dozen alternate proposals have been advanced by scholars for the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon. New textbooks and commentaries are already including the inscription found on the defixio my team recovered from Mt. Ebal. Next, Amanda informs CT readers that it is impossible to determine the stratum from which the tablet derived since we recovered it from discarded material from Adam Zertal’s 1980s excavation. Amanda seems unaware that Zertal only had two strata: Late Bronze Age II and Iron Age IA. So, regardless of the stratum, the writing predates other known examples of Hebrew (if we are correct in our analysis). Finally, Amanda mentions the criticism that the Mt. Ebal tablet is merely a fishing weight. Here she refers to Amihai Mazar’s 2023 article in Israel Exploration Journal. Mazar observes that certain fishing weights resemble the Mt. Ebal tablet. He theorizes that it is a Type L.2.3 weight and that 333 examples of such weights exist. However, he subdivides Type L.2.3 into subgroups A and B. He notes that 331 belong to subgroup A, and 2 belong to subgroup B. He believes the Mt. Ebal tablet belongs in subgroup B, the only two examples of which have grooves or holes for net ropes and come from coastal sites. The Mt. Ebal Tablet has no groove or hole and comes from Israel’s Central Highlands.
The Mt. Ebal lead curse tablet. Photo by Michael C. Luddeni.
In conclusion, it seems that Amanda chose poor examples to illustrate the need for caution in evaluating claims of archaeological discoveries that validate the biblical text. Furthermore, she committed factual errors and omitted vital information needed for her readers to fairly weigh her views. I hope that Christianity Today will set the record straight.
Scott Stripling, PhD
Director of Excavations, Shiloh
Near East Archaeological Society, President
[Editor’s note: Dr. Stripling’s response to “Big Digs, Bad Detectives” was declined for publication by the senior news editor of Christianity Today. The offered explanation for the denial indicated that Haley’s piece was “primarily” a criticism of ABR’s press conference, and thus, it was not necessary that other false statements and omissions related to archaeological matters be corrected. The senior news editor did correct the false claim that no epigraphers were present at the press conference. Concerns about ABR’s “poor form” in holding a press conference about an important new discovery are apparently more important than being concerned about publishing a critique that includes and promotes false or misleading statements.]
