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
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Conclusion
[Ebal, thirty-four of thirty-four]
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 COVID-19 scourge. Then, we viewed Stripling’s rocky attempts to introduce the tablet to the world.
We studied a scientific assessment and applied a legal measure.
We understood that 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 demands a forceful response.
It 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.
We must act now! Do not let this opportunity to glimpse the remote past turn to dust!
For this reason, I messaged my congressional delegation to advocate 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 Curse Tablet’s forceful narrative.
Also, encourage the 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.
(Luke 4:18-19, NIV)
The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
The key takeaway is this: Evidence clarifying the above must not remain at risk! 1
Now, a reminder that raises my last question.
I opened this memorandum with this plea: “Give Moses and the Hebrews of the Conquest a chance to prove who they are!” I close with this question: “What will you do to ensure that chance?”
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.
Follow Through V
[Ebal, thirty-three of thirty-four]
What action should you take in this matter?
Consider contacting your congressional delegation.
One of the easiest ways is to visit representatives’ and senators’ homepages. 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, write something like this:
Re: Joshua’s Altar in Judea / Samaria,
Dear Representative ________,
(or Senator ________,)
We should give Moses, Joshua, and the Hebrews of the Conquest a chance to prove who they are!
Please advocate for a U.S. lease of Joshua’s Altar in Judea / Samaria.
Posts here detail the altar’s plight: “https://captivatingtwists.com/category/topics/the-mount-ebal-curse-tablet/.”
They argue that:
- On Mt. Ebal, evidence of Joshua and the Hebrews of the Conquest may lie exposed;
- Such evidence likely challenges world history;
- Threats of the altar’s destruction mandate its prompt excavation; and
- A U.S. lease will best mitigate issues.
Please read these posts.
Afterwards, institute the legislative and diplomatic measures necessary 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
Now, a question: How many messages like this must your congressional delegation receive before they take notice? How many before they act?
Let me know in the comments section.
Next Post: “The End of a Beginning?”
To view the memorandum from the beginning, click here.
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Follow Through IV
[Ebal, thirty-two of thirty-four]
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 also convinces the U.S. that it 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, an expert diplomatic corps could accomplish this.
Now, for a question: What country, other than the U.S. or Canada, should lease Joshua’s Altar?
Let me know in the comments section.
Next post: “Take Action”
To view the memorandum from the beginning, click here.
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Follow Through III
[Ebal, thirty-one of thirty-four]
When you raise an issue, the military expects you to offer a solution. They do not expect “the solution.” They expect “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 something else. It is about allowing history, archaeology, and science free access to 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 the 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 may not be easy. It is not what one expects 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. 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.
The President’s base should also 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 allow this, especially not in culture, science, or 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 concerns. It wants to control online content in China. Plus, it wants to influence global cybersecurity. 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.
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Follow Through II
[Ebal, thirty of thirty-four]
Might Mt. Ebal harbor other evidence? Could it be profoundly important to understanding human history?
Is the juice worth the squeeze? Let us consider!
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 issues.
First, the Book of Job is relevant. It 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. 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.
Moreover, the site may contain 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 with 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. Infrared light has not illuminated these. Such could reveal ancient messages. Biblical accounts say Moses directed Joshua to write on plaster.
More plaster may lie in the portion of the small altar yet to be excavated.
In sum, Mt. Ebal likely contains archaeological evidence that humanity should glean. This can prove crucial to unraveling historical mysteries.
Now for questions: What ancient event dates close to Joshua’s altar? Could it produce important geomagnetic signatures?
Let me know in the comments section below.
Next Post: “Solution A”
To view the memorandum from the beginning, click here.
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Follow Through I
[Ebal, twenty-nine of thirty-four]
This memorandum has not reached its destination.
It must now follow through. The remaining posts, the last leg of our journey, accomplish this.
I promised explanations for my answers to three questions about the Curse Tablet and Joshua’s Altar. They were:
To all, I replied, “Yes!”
We have established that a major critic’s attempt to disprove Stripling’s claims failed.
By extension, I argue that we have also defeated others’ attempts to disprove. Why? Haughwout did a good job of raising most, if not all, of the salient arguments against Stripling’s claims.
Thus, further exploration at Mt. Ebal has scientific and archaeological merit.
But Joshua’s altar lies in a war zone. Plus, it resides in the world’s most geopolitically sensitive area.
The question now is this: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”
Are the potential artifacts and scientific evidence of sufficient value? Is it worth inserting a nation into a conflict zone? Is it worth meddling in this volatile area?
The next few posts address this.
First, we will consider the caliber of the evidence that might still lie on Mt. Ebal. I will do this in the next post.
Then, in two posts, I will consider how the U.S. or some other nation could best excavate Joshua’s Altar.
Next, I will discuss what actions we, as individuals, should take.
Afterwards, my conclusion brings this memorandum to an end.
Now for a question: Did Haughwout summarize the main qualms of most critics of Stripling’s claims?
Next Post: Ebal’s Juice
To view the memorandum from the beginning, click here.
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Decision
[Ebal, twenty-eight of thirty-four]
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.
It 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 how to apply my decision!
But beforehand, here are some questions: Do you agree with my decision? Why or why not?
Let me know in the comments section below.
Thank you for engaging with this topic thus far!
The next post is: “Last Legs”
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: “Last Legs”
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.
The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet
Arguments IV
[Ebal, twenty-seven of thirty-four]
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. 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 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 then.
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 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, things intermingled. This made it impossible to correlate the tablet with other items.
Thus, one cannot distinguish a ground-level Roman object from a Late Bronze Age one.
Therefore, we cannot date this artifact via pottery and lead analysis.
So there should be no genuine dispute about the material fact here. Did a Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age Hebrew inscribe the tablet? The probability is minuscule. Neither lead nor pottery analysis reliably dates this object. Also, better theories exist. Some 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. Non-Hebrews could have produced these. They could have done this after 1250 B.C.
A Hebrew Inscription before 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. Stripling did as well. 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”. Why? It conveyed to archaeologists important 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. 3
He emphasized other reasons for the tablet being Hebrew, not Greco-Roman. These include:
Again, Stripling ascribed no anachronistic Greek-Roman connection to the tablet.
Letter and Word Sequence
Haughwout complains about the boustrophedon nature of Galil’s proposed text. The wording’s direction of travel 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 tablet’s upper 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 for human understanding.
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 in 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 many 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.
Our standard requires more than Haughwout’s list of alternative tablet functions. He must show that a reasonable person could not genuinely dispute this: 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. He says the tablet contains neither proto-alphabetic letters nor words.
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 1400-1200 B.C.
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.
By a Hebrew 1250 B.C. + 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, I find the tablet’s letter and word sequencing reasonable. This boustrophedon offering is not only appropriate for the eyes of God. It is also discernible to the human eye.
Third, affiliating the artifact with the biblical Mountain of Curses, I find 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.