Mount Ebal Altar and Lead Curse Tablet
What Was Found
Mount Ebal is a peak north of ancient Shechem in the central hill country where, according to Joshua 8:30–35, Joshua built an altar to the Lord after crossing the Jordan into Canaan. Israeli archaeologist Adam Zertal surveyed and excavated the site from 1982 to 1989, identifying a large rectangular stone structure as a possible early Israelite altar dating to the Iron Age I period (c. 1200 BCE). The structure contained ash, animal bones, and pottery but no cultic figurines—details consistent with Israelite sacrificial practice. In 2019, Scott Stripling of Associates for Biblical Research initiated a project to wet-sift discarded soil from Zertal's original excavation dumps. In 2022, Stripling announced the discovery of a small folded lead tablet, approximately 2 centimeters square, recovered from this material. Using advanced tomographic scanning conducted at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic in Prague, epigraphers Gershon Galil and Peter van der Veen reported an interior inscription in proto-alphabetic script reading a curse formula invoking the divine name YHW. If the reading and early date are confirmed, it would represent one of the earliest known Hebrew inscriptions and the oldest attestation of the divine name outside of Egypt. The findings were formally published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2023.
Why This Matters
If the proposed reading and dating are confirmed, the Mount Ebal tablet would be the oldest Hebrew inscription ever found and the earliest extra-biblical attestation of the divine name, predating the Dead Sea Scrolls by over a millennium. The altar structure itself is significant as a potential early Israelite cultic site.
Acceptance Assessment
Debated Among Scholars
The altar identification is debated between those who see it as a cultic installation and those who view it as a watchtower or farmstead. The lead tablet inscription is highly contested.
What Scholars Debate
The altar identification has been disputed since Zertal's original publication, with some scholars seeing it as a farmstead or watchtower. The lead tablet has drawn strong criticism from epigraphers including Christopher Rollston and Aren Maeir, who question whether the scans show a legible inscription at all. Supporters maintain the tomographic imaging reveals clear letter forms.
