A Refutation?

The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet

Opposing Voices I

[Post twenty-one of thirty]

Many influential scholars criticize Stripling’s claims about the Curse Table. A significant number consider this prominent archaeologist’s Heritage Science article debunked.

Here, I start my discussion of those criticisms by focusing on the work of one scholar. That is Mark S. Haughwout. He is a respected Hebrew scholar at the Indian Bible College, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Note

This is the twenty-first post of my memorandum on the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet. It is also the first to assess opposing voices.

If you have accessed this post from other than captivatingtwists.com and wish to start the journey from the beginning, click here.

Otherwise, continue below.

There are a couple of reasons for this.

For one, he does an admirable job. He gives his thoughts. Plus, he summarizes the main views of other prominent voices.

The second reason is that his publisher, Heritage Science, is the same as Stripling’s. Thus, his article is also free and accessible online.

This, of course, makes a layperson’s review of his work doable.

Before considering the body of Haughwout’s article, let us spend some time with his title–“Mt. Ebal curse tablet? A refutation of the claims regarding the so-called Mt. Ebal curse tablet.”

A keyword is “refutation”.

Merriam-Webster defines this as “the act or process of refuting”.

For the root word, “refute”, it gives these alternative definitions:

1. : to prove wrong by argument or evidence: show to be false or erroneous
2. : to deny the truth or accuracy of

In these meanings, there is a wide difference.

Which did Haughwout intend?

Does Haughwout prove Stripling’s claims false, or does he deny their truth?

To underscore the vast difference in these ideas, consider Matthew 9:5 NIV.

Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?

Matthew 9:5 NIV

Of course, the answer is the former.

Also, denying the truth of Stripling’s claims is one thing. Actually proving that they are wrong is another.

So which is it? How can we know?

By happenstance, Haughwout answers himself. His 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.”

By using the word “refutation”, Haughwout says that he has disproved Stripling’s claims. This declares more than a dispute.

We thus perceive that Haughwout’s and Striplling’s ideas conflict.

One alleges that the Ebal tablet depicts something important.

The other claims to have refuted, i. e., disproved, those contentions. He declares, “Currently, this tablet presents nothing of consequence.”

One says, “Take notice, world! This artifact likely challenges history.”

The other declares that he has shown otherwise. Thus, scholars and serious journalists should ignore the claims about this artifact.

Esteemed professionals back both. Peer reviewers vetted them. A respected scientific journal published both.

How do we resolve this tension?

Whose arguments should carry the day?

Our next posts explore this.

Now some questions:

Do you think different standards should apply to these situations:

• Someone offers evidence that seems to contradict an important scientific or academic premise.
• Instead, they claim to have disproved that premise.

If so, what should that standard be?

Let me know in the comments section below.

Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!

The next post I entitle: “Between WWN, Sun, and Earth.”

Join me 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: “Between WWN, Sun, and Earth“