A Plan

Dissecting the Arguments I

[Ebal, Twenty-three of thirty]

I concluded my last post with these two questions:

• Are there potential grave consequences of Haughwout’s refutation? and
• How can we determine whose argument stands, Haughwout’s or Stripling’s?

Regarding the second question, I have already tipped my hand.

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 because I find Stripling’s tablet claims true.

It is because the evidence supports further excavation.

But I have yet to explain how I arrive at that conclusion. I answer this in the rest of this post. Plus, there I answer the question about consequences.

Note

This is the twenty-third post of my memorandum on the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet. It is also the first to dissect arguments about it.

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.

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. It also recognized that it must not allow frivolous claims to overburden courts.

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 about the facts fundamental 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 their benefactors. They need to show that their support is not wasted on frivolous pursuits.

But there is also a need to preserve precious evidence that may lie on Mt. Ebal.

Thus, a balance is necessary.

Again, one side advocates for protecting academic and scientific support. We should quash outrageous notions, they maintain. This underlies their desire to expose frivolous claims.

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

Haughwout’s “refutation” endangers this precious evidence. It bolsters an idea about further excavation. It is that Joshua’s Altar holds little promise of yielding results.

‘Given this, excavation is unlikely to proceed, especially given the adverse regional realities. This, in turn, exposes Joshua’s Altar to harm. This I 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 likelihood of its harm or destruction.

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

Thus, Haughwout’s refutation claim should balance these interests. This he can do by meeting a standard like that for summary judgment.

Haughwout should show that there is no genuine dispute about the essential facts. In other words, there is no genuine dispute about the 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 two words. That is “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 test these statements. Each in turn 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.

But first, here is a question. Does my “refutation/ disproval” standard seem fair to both sides and mankind?

Let me know your response in the comments below.

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”.

To support this work, you can donate below. If so, thank you for the encouragement.

Next post: “Letters?“