Between WWN, Sun, and Earth

Sizing the Opposition II

[Ebal’s Plea, twenty-two of thirty-two]

The last post sets up our story’s tension. Stripling claims that his artifact challenges scholarly world history. Haughwout counters that he has disproved such.

How do we resolve this? I suggested turning to an instrument of the American courts.

That instrument is summary judgment. Via it courts adjudicate civil cases absent a trial.

The procedure aids in balancing justice and fair play and the need for judicial economy.

Here I use it for comparison and contrast.

How does summary judgment work? Imagine yourself as the plaintiff seeking redress for a perceived wrong. At some point in pre-trial proceedings the opposing party files a motion for summary judgment. Both parties brief their respective positions. Afterward, the court issues its decision.

If the court agrees with the opposition and grants summary judgment in full against you, you lose, end stop! Barring an appeal–a costly, time consuming, and dicy affair, your case is caput. In effect, it has been deemed unworthy of further consideration. You get no opportunity for a trial.

Comparable Consequences

With this I draw a parallel with Haughwout’s “refutation”. By analogy he claims an iron clad case for in effect scholarly and journalistic summary judgment.

Henceforth, Stripling’s positions, Haughwout suggests, qualify in effect only for grocery aisle tabloid offerings of the latest Big Foot and Freddie Mercury sightings.

He figuratively contends that he has rendered Stripling’s arguments unfit for further serious scholarly or public consideration.

With Haughwout a sizable contingent of authors and professional commentators seem to agree.

This a quick online search confirms. Google “Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet”. There you soon encounter offerings such as these:

• “New Studies Debunk Controversial Biblical ‘Curse Tablet’ from Mt. Ebal”;¹
• “New academic articles heap fresh doubt on Mount Ebal ‘curse tablet’ interpretation;”²
• “Academic article on controversial 3,200 year-old ‘curse tablet fails to sway experts;”³
• “Hook, Line, and Sinker: Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet Debunked?;”⁴
• “Don’t Be Fooled by the Mount Ebal Curse Tablet.” ⁵
• “The Mt. Ebal “inscription” is actually a Folding Lead Clasp.”⁶

Delve deeper into these and you encounter statements from scholarly professionals like these:

• “This article is basically a text-book case of the Rorschach Test, and the authors of this article have projected upon a piece of lead the things they want it to say.” So advises Prof. Christopher Rollston, an expert in Northwest Semitic languages and the chair of the Department of Classical and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at George Washington University⁷;
• “The images made it clear that there are no discernible letters on this piece of crumpled lead,” said Rollston. “And again, the authors’ drawing of the letters bears no real similarity to what is present in the images;”⁸
• “One big nothingburger”, says Dr. Robert Cargill, as cited previously, a Bible scholar and professor at the University of Iowa.⁹

Articles and opinions pro and con are, of course, appropriate. The scholarly process thrives on such.

The scholarly world, however, should also honor justice and fair play.

The question is whether such really operates here.

Not only has Haughwout figuratively filed a motion for summary judgment in the court of scholarly and public opinion against Stripling’s claims.

Apparently too that court has in large part granted the motion. In other words, among much of the scholarly and journalistic community the Stripling claims are considered caput.

Real consequences ensue from this figurative adjudication.

This includes loss of possible funding. Maybe it quells a future academic / scientific endeavor by Stripling. For example, it could entail the loss of permit requests for further Mt. Ebal excavations.

Questions arise:

• Is this figurative adjudication just?
• Should Haughwout’s claim meet some minimal standard?
• Is not too much at stake to allow otherwise?

In sum, how do we arrive at an appropriate fair answer to all of these?”

Contrasting summary judgment and scholarly “refutation” suggests one.

This I will discuss in our next post.

Next post: “Rule 56”

1. See: http://www.haaretz.com-Archaeology November 20, 2023. ↩︎
2. See: http://www.timesofisrael.com -new -academic- December 7, 2023. ↩︎
3. See: http://www.timesofisrael.com -academic -article, May 14, 2023. ↩︎
4. See: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org-daily, December 4, 2023. ↩︎
5. See: Dr. Gad Barnea- Youtube,m.youtube.com -watch, June 2, 2023. ↩︎
6. The Mt. Ebal “Inscription” is actually a Folding Lead Clasp …
   YouTube·Bible & Archaeology·Dec 2, 2023 ↩︎
7. Melanie Lidman, Academic article on controversial 3,200 -year old ‘curse tablet’ fails to sway experts, The Times of Israel, 14 May 2023, paragraph 18, https://www.timesofisrael.com/ academic-article-on-controversial-3200-year-old-curse-tablet-fails-to-sway-experts/, (7 October 2024). ↩︎
8. Id., paragraph 37. ↩︎
9. The Mt. Ebal “Inscription” is actually a Folding Lead Clasp …
   YouTube·Bible & Archaeology·Dec 2, 2023 ↩︎