A Plan

Objective Analysis I

[Ebal, Twenty-three of thirty]

In the beginning, I argued that the world’s authorities should proceed posthaste to excavate Mt. Ebal’s Joshua’s Altar.

This I concluded not necessarily because I find Stripling’s tablet claims emphatically true.

It is because the evidence sufficiently supports further excavation.

But by what measure did I arrive at that conclusion?

This is my twenty-third post, submitting that the proposed Joshua’s Altar and the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet deserve a chance to prove what they might be. To start the journey from its beginning, click here. Otherwise, forge ahead.

Largely, my conclusion derives from applying a procedural rule of U. S. federal courts, that is, for summary judgment—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 56–Title 28 of the U.S. Code.

How does summary judgment work? 

Consider an example.

Mark sues Sally in federal court for negligence involving a Louisiana car accident. Sally, a Michigan resident, asks the court for summary judgment. With her motion, she attaches an affidavit stating that at the time of the wreck, she was in Quebec.

By granting Sally’s motion, a court could dismiss Mark’s case without him having the opportunity of a trial.

The U.S. Supreme Court recognized, however, that this outcome raises due process issues. On the other hand, it also recognized that it must safeguard the trial process from being overburdened by frivolous claims.

With Rule 56, the Supreme Court balances these competing interests. It authorizes granting Sally’s motion, given certain conditions. These include, in part:

• Sally proves that no genuine dispute exists regarding the facts relevant to her claim;
• The ruling court views the evidence in the light most favorable to Mark; and
• That court states on the record the reasons for its decision.

How does this relate to our situation? This matter also requires a balancing of competing interests.

On one hand, academics and scientists must maintain the trust of the institutional and financial benefactors that their support is not wasted on frivolous pursuits.

On the other hand, there is a need to preserve potentially precious evidence.

A balance thus is necessary.

Again, one side advocates for protecting academic and scientific support. They wish to insulate that from being diluted by outrageous notions. This underlies their desire to expose frivolous claims.

The other side clamors for safeguarding historical evidence. Here, the loss of evidence could fundamentally affect how mankind views this world. Plus, such is potentially available for the first time in millennia and may not be again accessible for a thousand years or more.

Haughwout’s “refutation” potentially endangers this precious evidence. His alleged disproval of Stripling’s claims bolsters the idea that further excavation at Joshua’s Altar holds little promise of yielding meaningful results.

‘Given this, excavation is unlikely to proceed, especially given the adverse regional realities. This, in turn, exposes Joshua’s Altar to potential harm. This I have previously discussed in Post 16, Troubled Waters, Local Perils. The bottom line is that the longer potential evidence lies exposed on Mt. Ebal, the greater the opportunity for it being accidentally or intentionally harmed or destroyed.

Achieving a fair balance of both of these interests, I argue, best serves mankind.

Therefore, Haughwout’s refutation claim should balance these interests. This he can do by meeting a standard similar to summary judgment.

Accordingly, Haughwout should show that no genuine dispute exists regarding the facts relevant to his claim, i.e., that there is no genuine dispute regarding his material facts. This burden falls on him as the one claiming the “refutation/disproval.”

That translates into him proving that a reasonable person could not disagree:

• That the tablet does not contain proto-alphabetic script denoting the words “ARWR”–“cursed” and “YHW”–“Yahweh”, the Hebrew name for God; and
• That a Hebrew did not inscribe the tablet before 1250 B. C.

The next four posts evaluate these statements. Each respectively focuses on:

• Does the tablet contain proto-alphabetic letters?;
• Does it display the word “ARWR”?;
• Does it reveal “YHW” as the name of God?; and
• Did a Hebrew before 1250 B. C. inscribe it?

After those discussions, I give my written judgment on Haughwout’s “refutation”.

My conclusion for this memorandum follows that.

Let us get after it.

Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!

The next post I entitle: “Letters?”

Join me there.

If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.

If you wish to support this work, you can do so in the donation section below. Such is really encouraging!

Next post: “Letters?”