Letters?

Dissecting the Arguments II

[Ebal, twenty-four of thirty]

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

To check this I take these steps:

First, I outline Haughwout’s position. Find this below the magenta banner.

Against it, I push back. You find this below the yellow.

Last, I announce my findings below the purple banner.

Note

This is the twenty-fourth post of my memorandum on the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet.

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.

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: #’s 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 to intersect with that character.

Prominent were the two cracks that he deduced had, over time, created the “Ox’s” horns. (See here.)

This Aleph’s favorable status thus degenerated. He deduced that it was only the chance product of cracks. No longer was it an exquisite inscription. It now presented a coincidental aberration with disproportioned 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, and
• 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. More so, this applied to the rest.

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 of a medieval manuscript.

See Table 2 (3 a and b). 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 one of the Stripling team’s epigraphers. 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).

On this clearer image, you can see that the possible cracks do not meld with the horn tips. 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 cracks’ directions deviate.

The above emphasizes the likelihood that an author crafted a beautiful letter. Then, connecting 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, though, 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 “his “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 inner surface of the tablet. Imagine, too, a grid over the bottom. That dot had to appear precisely at the appropriate coordinates for the stickman’s head to mirror. Does the bottom dot reflect what someone etched into the tablet’s inner surface? Rather, is this just 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 to be in motion. This figure I find amazing. The positive of the inner tablet and the negative of the bottom mirror. Is this, also, 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 or photographic lighting or shadows. 1

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

• The tablet’s top,” Outer A,” does not have marks corresponding to these negatives. Only our inner tablet marks do.
• Last, a human closed this. Likely too, that person did this to conceal and protect a message hidden within.

Could a reasonable person dispute the material fact addressed here? Yes, with genuine 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. A reasonable person can dispute it. Haughwout says that the tablet bears no proto-alphabetic script. One could respond with a genuine, “No, it might!”

Haughwout concedes that Figure 7’s #’s 18, 19, 12, 20, and 21 represent proto-alphabetic forms. Still, he concludes that they are 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 fact that the letters are small is of little consequence. My wedding band has my wife’s name etched inside it. They are tiny but no less visible, real, and meaningful.
• The bottom negatives argue for 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. Toward which interpretation of Aleph #21 do you incline? 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.

Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!

The next post I will title: “The ‘ARWR’ Debate.”

I look forward to continuing with you 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: The “ARWR“ Debate