Letters?

Dissecting the Arguments II

[Ebal, twenty-four of thirty-two]

Here we test the first part of Haughwout’s material fact. It is whether the tablet contains proto-alphabetic letters. 1

These are the steps I take to check this:

• First, I outline Haughwout’s position. Find it below the magenta banner.
• Against it, I push back. You find this below the yellow.
• Third, I announce my findings below the purple banner.

No Letters

When Haughwout began studying the photos of Stripling’s article, his impression was favorable. The tablet’s top right corner indeed seemed to display several proto-alphabetic characters. These were Teh, Meh, He, Teh, and Aleph-Figure 7’s numbers: 18, 19, 12, 20, and 21.

For him, the most impressive was Aleph #21. Best, he felt, it displayed the appropriate proto-alphabetic characteristics.

His opinion, however, soon changed.

On close review, he noticed crack lines. These ran from the tablet’s edge. From there, they intersected with that character.

He deduced that two cracks had created the “Ox’s” horns. (See here.)

This Aleph’s favorable status thus degenerated. Now, it was only the chance product of cracks, not an exquisite inscription. It now presented an aberration with malapportioned horns. This disqualified it as a man-made letter. 1

Disillusionment followed also for the other four likely script candidates. All he concluded were cracks, scratches, or dents in the lead.

Some of the primary reasons for this were:

• First, he realized how small these characters were, ranging from .01 to .05 mm. The minimalist crack, scratch, or dent could replicate them.
• Photos of bulges on the tablet’s bottom (Table 10) failed to impress Haughwout. These Stripling had presented as negative proofs of inside characters. They, too, Haughwout concluded, likely resulted from cracks, scratches, and dents.

Haughwout thus finally surmised that his favored characters presented major existential problems.

These troubles extended to the rest of the supposed letters.

Pushback on Haughwout’s Improbable letters

I. Lovely Aleph

Haughwout first saw “Aleph” (Figure 7, # 21) as a gorgeous proto-alphabetic inscription.

On this, I agree.

Note its beauty! It is as elegant as the calligraphy at the beginning of a chapter in a medieval manuscript.

See Table 2 (3a and 3b). What do you think?

Haughwout, however, finds what he considers a fatal flaw. Crack lines intersect the horns.

These, he concludes, reveal the inscription to be a happenstance accident. (See Haughwout’s illustration again.)

But Dr. Pieter van der Veens of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz thinks otherwise. He is a Stripling team epigrapher. He is also an expert in ancient Near Eastern languages and inscriptions. Force, he says, applied to a stylus near the tablet’s edge likely caused the cracks.

In fact, along the tablet’s top, this “Aleph” is among the closest. ¹

Note too that Haughwout’s notations appear on a photo that blurs this Aleph.”

Look instead at Table 2 (3a).

This clearer image shows that the cracks and the horn tips do not meld. Both horns suffer some misdirection. That is where the aesthetic horns end, and the likely cracks intersect.

Both of the aesthetic horns are darker, wider, and likely deeper.

Plus, at the intersection points, the crack directions deviate.

Likely, an author crafted a beautiful letter. Then, cracks marred it.

II. Tiny Letters

Haughwout also complains about the letters’ small sizes. Here, the simple explanation is that the author had little space to work. Plus, in that small space, he had a serious message to convey-one not intended for human eyes but only for God.

Still, they are visible to man.

III. Bottom Bulges

Further, Haughwout scoffs at the idea of a negative script on the tablet’s bottom. To him, the bulges on “Outer B” only replicate inner tablet marks, scratches, and cracks.

This evidence deserves less flippant appraisal.

Consider these examples:

• Consider “He” of Upper “YHW”. “Lamed” hangs around this “He’s” neck like a horseshoe. (See Table 3, 1a.) “Lamed” resembles our capital letter “G”. On the negative, we see the “G” with a large dot at the center of its gate. (See Table 6, 2a.)That represents the head of “He”. Now imagine grid lines over the tablet’s inner surface. Imagine, too, a grid over the bottom. That dot had to appear precisely at the appropriate coordinates. Otherwise, the stickman’s head would not mirror. Thus, the bottom dot reflects what someone etched into the tablet’s inner surface. Otherwise, it is an incredible coincidence.
• Compare “He” of Figure 7’s #3 and Table 3 (4a and b) with Table 10, photo #2. I name this image “Dancing He”. Why? Notice that his arms and legs seem captured in motion. Note also the positive inner tablet and the negative of the bottom mirror. I find this too amazing to be a coincidence.
• See, the first “Resh” in the word “ARWR” ( Figure 7 #26 and Table 8, (2a & b)). Compare it with the bottom bulge shown in Table 10, #8. Notice how they coincide. The positive inner image slants right. The bulge mirrors to the left.
• Compare also the “Waw” of Figure 7 #13 and Table 4 (1a and b) with Table 10, photo #4. Are these not both mace representations?
• Compare, too, the “Mem” of Figure 7 #19 and Table 7 (1a & b) with Table 10, #7. Do they not represent waves of water associated with this character?
• Important is the “Yod” (Figure 7 # 11 and Table 5, (1a & b)) compared with that in Table 10, photo #3. Both are faint. Yet even faint mirroring reflections have an important ramification, one that Haughwout recognizes. He notes, “The reality is a dent on one side of a 0.4 mm thick piece of lead will, of course, appear on the opposite side.” Further, he continues that this proves something. It is that the marks “on the inside are there and are not X-ray anomalies.” It is not some fluke produced by X-ray, photographic lighting, or shadows.2

Haughwout contends that happenstance dents and scratches cause the opposing bulges. This theory must account for these factors:

• The tablet’s top, Outer A, lacks marks corresponding to these negatives. Only our inner tablet marks do.
• The tablet’s top protected the inner surface from the time the tablet closed. Thereafter, inner-surface dents and marks became unlikely.
• Last, a human closed this. Likely, that person did this to conceal and protect a message hidden within.

Could a reasonable person dispute the material fact addressed here? Yes, with sincerity, they could doubt it. They could determine that the tablet markings might be proto-alphabetic script.

This part of Haughwout’s material fact thus fails to support his refutation.

Improbable Letter Finding

The evidence shows a genuine dispute about Haughwout’s proposition here. Haughwout says that the tablet bears no proto-alphabetic script. A reasonable person could genuinely respond, “No, it might!”

Haughwout concedes that Figure 7’s numbers 18, 19, 12, 20, and 21 represent proto-alphabetic forms. Still, he concludes otherwise. He says that they are only coincidental cracks and dents.

Yet, a reasonable person could give this genuine counter:

• “Lovely Aleph” (Figure 7, # 21) is likely a scribe’s work, marred by cracks radiating from the tablet edge.
• The letters being small is inconsequential. My wedding band has my wife’s name etched inside it. They are tiny but no less visible, real, or meaningful.
• The bottom negatives argue for a man-made proto-alphabetic script inside the tablet.

So, Haughwout’s improbable letter arguments do not support his “refutation” claim. He has failed to meet our test. A reasonable person could assess the facts. They could genuinely decide that the tablet may contain proto-alphabetic letters.

Might another of his arguments fare better? Next up, we will examine the first of his “improbable word” criticisms. That claim is that “ARWR”- “Cursed” is not there.

Now, here are some questions. Which interpretation of Aleph #21 do you think is best? Does it befit a medieval manuscript? Or do you incline toward cracks intersecting to give the illusion of an ox skull?

Let me know in the comment section below.

Next post: The “ARWR“ Debate

1. Haughwoout, M. S. Mt. Ebal curse tablet? A refutation of the claims regarding the so called Mt. Ebal curse tablet, Herit Sci 12, 70 (2024). htts://doi.org/101186/s40494-023-01130-z, paragraph 16. ↩︎
2. Id. paragraph 17. ↩︎
3. Id. paragraph 56. ↩︎