Welcome to my wife’s and my website.
Captivating topics motivate the writing.
Twists of Interest include:
Others we aim to pursue.
Thank you for visiting!
Stop
&
Note!!!
To view a subject in its intended order, click under “topics” at the top right!
Supplemental Material II
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Supplemental Material I
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Post 5
Journey Essentials
Post 6
A Mysterious Tease
Post 7
The Paradigm
Post 8
Joshua’s Altar?
Post 9
Zertal Rejected
Post 10
Whoa!
Post 11
A Defixio?
Post 12
An Inscription!
Post 13
Staking a Claim
Post 14
A Firestorm!
Post 15
Peer Review
Post 16
Troubled Waters
Associates for Biblical Research, YaHWeh Curse Tablet: A Tsunami from Mt. Ebal, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU5njOpRCHQ&t=85s, (29:23) 1 November 2024.
Post 17
Stripling’s Article
Post 19
YHW,” “Yahweh!”
Post 22
Between WWN, Sun, and Earth
Post 23
A Plan
Sean McDowell, Oldest Hebrew Writing? Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet (Revisited) m.youtube.com>watch, (25:28), 11 May 2023.
Post 24
Letters?
Post 26
The YHW Debate
Post 27
Post 29
A Loose End
Post 30
Solution A
Here We Go Again: The U.S. Withdrawal from UNESCO,
https://ucigcc.org/blog/here-we-go-again-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-unesco/,United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Post 33
Conclusion (33).
Sean McDowell, Oldest Hebrew Writing? Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet (Revisited) m.youtube.com>watch, (45:50), 11 May 2023.
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Conclusion
[Ebal, thirty-three of thirty-three]
Do not ignore the Curse Tablet. Act on it!
Why?
“The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.”
Winston Churchill
We embarked on an epic journey. We glanced at the Late Bronze Age through the Greco-Roman period. In the modern era, we pondered Wellhausen’s musings. Afterwards, we witnessed Adam Zertal’s enigmatic discovery and Frankie Snyder’s curious find. We persisted through the scourge of COVID-19. Then we viewed Stripling’s rocky attempts to introduce the tablet to the world.
We also engaged in a scientific assignment and a legal measure.
We have seen that Mt. Ebal’s Joshua’s Altar lies in a dangerous part of the world. There, it faces genuine threats.
This highlights a truth: Without evidence of the past, we have little hope of discerning its wisdom.
If destroyed, its secrets cannot hope to instruct our future.
This situation demands a forceful response.
This includes the U.S. leasing Joshua’s Altar.
Why? Clarifying evidence may lie on Mt. Ebal, evidence of monumental importance.
Losing it would constitute a disaster of incomprehensible proportions.
Justifications for vigilance and action abound.
Therefore, we must do something now! Do not let this opportunity to glimpse the remote past turn to dust! How, then, could it inform our future?
For this reason, I wrote the congressional messages discussed in the previous post. They argue for leasing Joshua’s Altar.
Why? The tablet presents actionable evidence. Its assault on history is credible. Delay imperils precious testimony.
Final Thoughts
We now reach the end of our Mount Ebal adventure.
Share what you have learned. Tell of the forceful narrative of the Curse Tablet.
Also, encourage the lease and proper excavation of Joshua’s Altar.
Afterwards, the Curse Tablet may testify not to a possibility. Then it could underscore an inescapable reality.
What might this reality be?
Weigh:
If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me.
The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must listen to him.
Philip found Nathanael and told him “We have found the One Moses wrote about in the Law, the One the prophets foretold–Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
But now apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, as attested by the Law and the Prophets. 1
What is the key takeaway? It is this: Evidence clarifying the above must not remain at risk! 1
Now, for questions: How likely are authorities to respond accordingly? What circumstances could improve those chances?
Thank you for engaging with this topic!
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.
To support this work, you can donate below. If so, thank you for the encouragement.
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
To view the memorandum from the beginning, click here.
For the composite footnotes, click here.
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Application IV
[Ebal, thirty-two of thirty-three]
What action should you take in this matter?
Consider contacting your congressional delegation.
One of the easiest ways is to visit your representative’s and your senators’ home pages. Then click the “Contact” button. There, you complete your personal information. Afterwards, you identify the subject of interest. I clicked “international relations”.
In the message block, you might write something like this:
Dear Representative ________,
(or Senator ________,)
We should give Moses, Joshua, and the Hebrews of the Conquest a chance to prove who they are!
Please work toward the U.S. leasing Joshua’s Altar in Judea / Samaria.
In thirty-two posts, the website captivatingtwists.com details the altar’s plight. To access these, hover over topics in the site’s navigation bar. Then click “The Mount Ebal Curse Tablet.”
There you find these arguments:
- On Mt. Ebal, evidence of Joshua and the Hebrews of the Conquest may lie exposed;
- Such evidence challenges world history;
- Threats of the altar’s destruction mandate its prompt excavation;
- Despite the geopolitical dangers, the U.S. should intervene; and
- A U.S. lease will best allay the issues presented.
Please read these posts.
Afterwards, support legislative measures to make the lease a reality.
Thank you for representing me in Washington and on the world stage.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
_____________
Your name
You can message something similar.
Now, for a question. How many such messages must your congressional delegation receive before they take notice?
Let me know in the comments section.
Next Post: “Curse Tablet Conclusion“
To view the memorandum from the beginning, click here.
For the composite footnotes, click here.
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
[Ebal, thirty-one of thirty-three]
Application III
There are alternatives which, in fact, are more elegant than A.
For example, Canada, rather than the United States, leases Joshua’s Altar.
Why is that more elegant? Canadian law, unlike that of the U.S., does not gravely impede interactions with the Palestinian Authority.
In exchange for Canada’s efforts, the U.S. would reward Canada with concessions.
Solution C is similar. It involves another country stepping forward with the lease. That one the P.A.trusts. It is also one that the U.S. is assured will accomplish the goals listed in this memorandum.
Achieving B or C requires talent and finesse. Again, one should not expect such from a president’s son-in-law or golf buddy. However, it is attainable for an expert diplomatic corps.
Now, for a question: What country, other than Canada, do you think is appropriate to lease Joshua’s Altar?
Let me know in the comments section.
Next post: “Taking Action”
To view the memorandum from the beginning, click here.
For the composite footnotes, click here.
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Application II
[Ebal, thirty of thirty-three]
When you raise an issue, the military expects you to offer a solution.
I write this post in that spirit..
The issue is this: How might archaeologists properly excavate Joshua’s Altar?
Before I give my solution, I need to address a likely complaint. It is that my solution involves the government in a religious matter.
This is not about religion. It is about truth. It is about allowing history, archaeology, and science free access to seek truth.
People may indeed use that truth for religious purposes. In our country, folks are free to do that.
That, in itself, does not limit government. It can justly protect history, archaeology, and science in their quest for truth.
Therefore, my solution is this: The U.S. should lease Joshua’s Altar from the Palestinian Authority.
Historical examples of such include:
Afterward, we should address the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Our demand should be: “Declare the altar a World Heritage Site!”
First, Congress must repeal or change several laws. These deter the U.S. from interacting with the Palestinian Authority (PA).
These include the following:
Following these actions, the U.S. should negotiate a lease. The ninety-nine-year term would include not only the altar site. It would also include the area within the surrounding stone “footprints”.
The lease provisions grant the U.S. authority to excavate. It also grants the U.S. ownership of any artifacts discovered.
Moreover, the lease includes the following provisions:
Achieving this lease may not be easy. Certainly, it is not something one would expect a son-in-law or golf buddy to negotiate.
I am confident, however, that professional diplomats could achieve this.
The following measures would smooth the lease’s path:
Both the U.S. and Israel left UNESCO in 2019 during the first Trump administration.
The U.S. rejoined during the Biden years.
President Trump pulled us out again in 2025, effective December 2026.1
The United States should remain in UNESCO. There, it should exert its influence on this and other matters.
UNESCO is the United Nations agency responsible for preserving cultural sites. These are important to humankind around the globe. It also promotes science and education worldwide.
Click here to see the listings of its World Heritage Sites. Notice that this includes many in Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the U.S.
Currently, it is unlikely that President Trump will support UNESCO membership.
However, this could change after the November 2026 midterm elections. Congress may then have greater political power over such actions.
Besides, the President’s base should favor Joshua’s Altar being a World Heritage Site.
Further, the U.S. remaining a force in UNESCO makes good public policy sense.
Our withdrawal forfeits influence on the world stage to China. We should not desire this in the areas of culture, science, and education.
For one, this emboldens China’s position as a more reliable partner on these fronts.
But the danger is more specific.
Consider China’s influence over education as an example.
Our absence from AI conversations here could lead to distasteful results. We value privacy and consumer safety. China emphasizes other interests. It appreciates control over online content creation and dissemination. That is within China, and its conceptions of cybersecurity more broadly.” 1
We should not concede to China the influence of such multinational norms.
The same applies to science and culture.
Thus, I contacted my congressional delegation regarding this issue. I asked that they follow these steps:
Readers, I also encourage you to contact your congressional delegation. The next post gives guidance on this.
Now, for a question: Do you agree that abandoning our UNESCO influence is a poor public policy move?
Let me know in the comments section.
Next Post: “Solutions B & C”
To view the memorandum from the beginning, click here.
For the composite footnotes, click here.
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Application I
[Ebal, twenty-nine of thirty-three]
Before concluding this memorandum, I address issues that flow from my decision.
This post addresses whether Mount Ebal hides other important evidence.
The next two handle: How might the U.S. or another country excavate Joshua’s Altar?
Then I examine: What action should we take?
Hidden Evidence?
The Curse Tablet likely remembered Joshua’s initial ceremony. Yet it probably did not take part.
The evidence indicates that the author inscribed it later.
Why? Archaeologists have not excavated the part of the round altar that likely existed in Joshua’s time. This implies that the author placed the Curse Tablet on the altar after the initial event.
That raises the possibility that another tablet accompanied the initial ceremony!
Note that Stripling anticipates further excavations. He plans to do this as soon as the present geopolitical tensions subside.
But why the anticipation? In part, further excavation and analysis raise interesting propositions.
First, the Book of Job implies that the ancients valued metal as a writing surface. 3
Stripling’s team has found three writing styluses. They found these in the dump Zertal designated as altar material. 4
This suggests several writings on metal. These may lie on the small altar.
An ancient author may have etched a revealing message on a gold ring, earrings, or a bracelet. Afterwards, the scribe included them in a sacrifice.
An original tablet could also have been part of Joshua’s ceremony.
Moreover, the site contains other important evidence.
Recently, geomagnetic dating has proved key to dating ancient sites. 1
After solids heat to an extreme temperature and then cool, something revealing happens. Their magnetic minerals align with the Earth’s core geomagnetic signature. Compare these with the signatures of other burn sites from a similar period. This gives clues about their relative dates.
Scientists should analyze the magnetic signatures of the stones from Joshua’s Altar.
This also applies to the site’s tablet and pottery.
New artifacts from the small altar would also yield valuable information. 1
Match this data to other burn data from sites across the Late Bronze Age Middle East. Examples include those from Egyptian, Hittite, Ugaritic, Minoan, Mycenaean, Trojan, and Babylonian sources. It also includes biblical sites at Jericho, Ai, and Shiloh.
These scientists would compare with an anchor, a known contemporary date.
I realize that zeroing in on a solid anchor in such ancient times may be difficult. Still, we should retrieve and store the geomagnetic data. That way, if archaeologists identify an anchor, the data will be available.
Precise calculation of Joshua’s Altar would follow.
Further, Zertal retrieved plaster bits during his excavations. Those have never been exposed to infrared light. Such could reveal writing. Biblical accounts describe Moses directing people to write on plaster at Mt. Ebal and Gerizim.
More plaster may lie in the portion of the small altar yet to be excavated.
In sum, Mt. Ebal contains archaeological evidence that humanity should glean. This can prove crucial to unraveling historical mysteries.
Again, we need to excavate and analyze Joshua’s Altar.
Now for today’s question: What burn events might compare with that of Joshua’s Altar?
Let me know in the comment section below.
Next Post: “Solution A”
To view the memorandum from the beginning, click here.
For the composite footnotes, click here.
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Decision
[Ebal, twenty-eight of thirty-three]
Has Haughwout refuted Stripling’s claims? Here is my decision!
Haughwout’s conclusion states:
“The only substantiated claim that Stripling et al. can make at this time is that they have found a very old, small piece of folded lead on Mt. Ebal using wet sifting.”
Thus, Haughwout claims to have disproved Stripling’s assertions.
I measure this claim against a standard set out by the U.S. Supreme Court. That rule governs summary judgment in our federal system.
To decide for Haughwout, I must reach a specific finding. It is that a reasonable person could not genuinely dispute the material fact(s) of his claim. If I discover otherwise, I must reject his claim.
Further, I condensed Haughwout’s claim to a singular material fact. It is that: At least one of the following statements is true:
A reasonable person could genuinely dispute this statement.
Haughwout thus failed in his refutation.
Here is a list of points that support my adjudication:
Despite the above, I conclude that Haughwout’s criticisms significantly advance scholarly debate. That includes where he errs. Why? Such clearly stated, academically advanced reasoning engenders a healthy scientific and scholarly exchange.
The stark exception is the claim of a “refutation/ disproval”.
He should have represented his work as a “denial” of Stripling’s claims.
This mischaracterization can harm science and scholarship. It can deflect further excavation, quench funding, and block permits.
Such hinders the truth.
Thus, I deny Haughwout’s “refutation”.
Stripling’s article is thus “safe!” Haughwout’s “refutation” tag does not apply.
Next, I address some loose ends!
But beforehand, here are some questions: Do you agree with my decision? Why or why not?
Let me know in the comment section below.
Thank you for engaging with this topic thus far!
The next post is: “Loose Ends.”
I look forward to continuing with you there.
If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.
To support this work, you can donate below. If so, thank you for the encouragement.
Next post: “Loose Ends”
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
To view the memorandum from the beginning, click here.
For the composite footnotes, click here.
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Arguments IV
[Ebal, twenty-seven of thirty-three]
Here, I examine the last part of Haughwout’s material fact. He contends that a Hebrew before 1250 B.C. did not author the tablet.
To rule for Haughwout, I must find that a reasonable person could not genuinely dispute this.
Otherwise, this part of his material fact fails to support his “refutation”.
This I strive to decipher in these steps:
As before, I outline Haughwout’s position first. Find this below the magenta banner.
Against that, I push back below the yellow.
Last, I announce my findings beneath the purple banner.
Not a Hebrew from before 1250 B. C.
The artifact’s nature and provenance refute Stripling’s dating. A Hebrew did not inscribe the tablet in the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age. Here are the reasons:
Anachronistic Defixio
Stripling links his curse tablet to a culture alien to the early Hebrews. A Late Bronze Age Hebrew defixio would be about a seven-hundred-year anachronism.
Tortured letter and word sequences
Stripling et al. use a contorted letter sequence. They use this to justify their Hebrew words and chiasmatic interpretations.
The direction that the letters and words travel strains credibility. See here.
Wrong Nature and Provenance
Rather than these tortured wanderings, prominent archaeologists and epigraphers offer sensible alternative interpretations.
First, Dr. Gad Barnea and Dr. Robert Cargill say that the artifact is not a defixio.To them, it is a clasp for fastening a strand of decorative string or a hair barrette. The markings merely decorate the object. They identify no particular culture. Their origin could be Canaanite, Phoenician, or Moabite. They might also belong to other sojourners in the ancient Middle East.
Additionally, Professor Amhai Mazar suggests a fishing weight. This idea fits well with a translation of the tablet’s “TMT” letters, Figure 7’s #18, 19, and 20. In Mesopotamian, this means “depth”– logical parlance for fishing gear.
Inconclusive Lead and Pottery Dating
Neither the lead nor the pottery analysis dates the tablet.
I. Lead analysis
The lead analysis alone does not pin the tablet to the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age. The Labrion mine exported lead to the Middle East for about a millennium. This extended to centuries after the Early Iron Age. This artifact could have arrived in this part of the Middle East in those later times.
II. Pottery Dating
Also, pottery cannot date this artifact. This requires verified stratification correspondence. Here, we lack this.
This object, for example, could have been a theatre ticket dropped by a Roman soldier. It lay there on or near ground level for centuries. Then Zertal’s team laid a discard pile on top of it.
Some 40 years later, the Stripling team transported the entire pile to a neutral site. In that process, they intermingled pottery items. This made it impossible to correlate the tablet with other items.
One thus cannot distinguish a ground-level Roman object from a Late Bronze Age item.
Thus, we cannot date this artifact via pottery and lead analysis.
So there should be no genuine dispute about the material fact here. Did a Hebrew of the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age inscribe the tablet? The probability is minuscule. Neither lead nor pottery analysis provides reliable dating for this object. Also, better theories exist. These suggest that this artifact was not a defixio. Such would be a seven-hundred-year anachronism. More plausible are a hairpiece, a net sinker, or a theatre ticket. A non-Hebrew of a later date could have produced these.
Hebrew of 1250 B.C. +
Here I respond to the above:
An Anachronistic Defixio?
Stripling’s article made no anachronistic connection between the tablet and Greco-Roman culture.
When Frankie Snyder reported the lead object in her tray, she recognized it as a defixio. So did Stripling. Yet, he realized the inconsistency. He knew that this presented a dating dilemma. He knew that this did not match Zertal’s careful pottery analysis for the Mt. Ebal site.
Later, the tomographic scans revealed the tablet’s proto-alphabetic script. For Stripling, this anchored the tablet. It must have originated before 1250 B.C., when scribes used this writing style. 1 It thus could not be Greco-Roman.
Henceforth, he used the term “defixio” as an aid to understanding. The defixio label communicated that someone sealed the tablet with an enclosed curse.
To other archaeologists, the term “defixio” told much about the tablet. They envisioned these traits:
He, however, did not ascribe any Greco-Roman cultural connection.
Stripling contrasted this defixio with the Greco-Roman variant. For example, he noted the curse’s titular nature. 2
He emphasized other reasons for the tablet being Hebrew, not Greco-Roman. These include:
Again, Stripling ascribed no anachronistic Greek-Roman connection to the defixio.
Letter and Word Sequence
Haughwout complains about the boustrophedon nature of Galil’s proposed text. The wording’s direction of travel, he claims, is too extreme.
Yet, reconsider the map of the tablet’s proposed letter and word order here. It starts at the bottom left, proceeds up the left side. Then it twists and turns a bit in the upper left corner. Next, the text moves across the top. Then it moves down the right side and culminates in tucking into the middle. The logic is as if one is coiling a rope.
Stripling’s team found the tablet within an altar’s waste pile. One can thus infer that the inscriber intended its message for God. Thus, the author had no concern about man’s understanding of the message.
Still, contrary to Haughwout’s insistence, the sequence is coherent even for us.
Barrette or Sinker?
Might the artifact have been an ornate barrette or a fishing weight? The evidence suggests, “Not likely!”
Of the two, the hair accessory seems the most plausible. If for no other reason, one would expect this more on a mountain far from a fishery. The Sea of Galilee is fifty-seven miles (ninety-one kilometers) from Mt. Ebal.
Yet, both seem incongruous with the tablet’s vibe. I can think of a lot of things I would write. “God’s death curse” would not be one—not for a fishing net and especially not for a woman’s hair.
Haughwout has a simple strategy to establish his “refutation” here. It is by announcing a list of alternative tablet functions.
But our standard requires otherwise. He must show that a reasonable person could not genuinely dispute this part of his material fact. That is, that a Hebrew did not inscribe the tablet during the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age.
A person, however, could list these reasons for disputing this:
Note here also the inconsistency of Haughwout’s argument supporting the net sinker theory. He suggests that “TMT” (Figure 7’s #s: 18, 19, and 20) may represent a proto-alphabetic word. That is the Mesopotamian word for “depth”. Yet, throughout his article, he argues otherwise. The tablet contains neither proto-alphabetic letters nor words, he says. 1
Haughwout conjectures that these proto-alphabetic letters spell a Mesopotamian word meaning “depth”. He does not, however, explain the obvious retort. Why not the Hebrew word for “You will die!”?
Lead and Pottery Dating
Haughwout makes some valid points here. Yes, neither the lead nor the pottery analysis makes solid dating assessments. But Stripling never alleged such.
They do, however, as Stripling contends, support dating the tablet from 1400 to 1200 B.C.
However, deciding this is unnecessary. Haughwout himself concedes the issue.
How? He acknowledges that proto-alphabetic script would date to 1400 to 1200 B.C. 1
Also, he acknowledges that the letters “TMT” (Figure 7, # 18, 19, and 20) are proto-alphabetic.
A Roman soldier’s theatre ticket
How and why would this ticket contain proto-alphabetic Hebrew? Yes, there are explanations. But the chances of these are remote. These leave room for a reasonable person to doubt Haughwout’s theory.
1250 + Finding
Haughwout failed to carry his burden on this last part of his material fact.
He asserts that a Hebrew from before 1250 B. C. did not inscribe the tablet.
Yet, a reasonable person could genuinely dispute this.
There are four justifications for this.
First, Stripling’s article made no anachronistic connection between the tablet and Greco-Roman culture.
Second, one could conclude that the tablet’s letter and word sequencing is reasonable. This boustrophedon offering is not only appropriate for the eyes of God. It is also discernible to the eyes of man.
Third, affiliating the artifact with the biblical Mountain of Curses seems reasonable. Compare this with the proposed options of a fishing sinker, a hair adornment, or a theatre ticket. The former fits the provenance and location.
Fourth, Haughwout’s criticisms strengthen Stripling’s dating conclusions.
He acknowledges two points.
Then he notes that “TMT” means “depth” in Mesopotamian.
Yet he fails to explain why it could not be Hebrew for “You will die!”
We have now reflected on the four portions of Haughwout’s material fact. It is time for my adjudication. Has Haughwout achieved the refutation he claims?
I will announce this in the next post.
Meanwhile, here is a question. What evidence could strengthen the tablet’s Late Bronze to Early Iron Age case?
Share your thoughts in the comment section below.
Next post: “My Call”
To view the memorandum from the beginning, click here.
For the composite footnotes, click here.