My Adjudication

Objective Analysis VI

[Ebal, twenty-eight of thirty]

Has Haughwout refuted Stripling’s claims? Here is my decision!

This is my twenty-eighth post urging 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, continue on.

Haughwout entitled his article “A Refutation.”

On that, his conclusion doubles down. There he 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.”

Thus, Haughwout emphatically declares that he disproved Stripling’s contentions.

In this evaluation, I have measured against a standard similar to one set out by the U.S. Supreme Court. That standard governs summary judgment in our federal system.

My similar standard is this: To decide in favor of Haughwout, I must find that a reasonable person could not genuinely dispute his claim’s material fact(s). I must deny Haughwout’s “disproval” if I find otherwise.

Further, I condensed Haughwout’s claim to a singular material fact. It is that: At least one of the following statements is true:

• The tablet does not contain proto-alphabetic script, which denotes the words “ARWR”–“cursed” and “YHW”–“Yahweh”, the Hebrew name for God; or
• A Hebrew of before 1250 B. C. did not inscribe the tablet.

Ultimately, I find that a reasonable person could genuinely dispute this statement.

Haughwout thus failed in his endeavor.

Here is a list of points I find support my adjudication:

• The difference between three and four letter Yahweh has a reasonable explanation. Later, scribes added the “Heh” to capture the previously understood vowel ending, in this case, an “eh” sound.
• Use of “Wah” in place of the vowel in “ARWR” is reasonably attributable to a smart scribe.
  • The substitution makes phonetic sense.
  • Also, the evidence suggests that this Late Bronze Age spelling persisted through to the eighth century B. C., Tomb of Shebnayahu, and beyond.
• The crack lines of Aleph, Figure 7, #25, and Table 2, (3a and b) do not intersect directly with the horns. Thus, it is reasonable to deduce that the cracks intersect with a well-drawn figure.
• Affiliating the artifact with the scriptural Mountain of Curses seems reasonable.
  • This is especially so when compared with proposed options classifying it as a net sinker, hair adornment, or theatre ticket.
  • The scriptural attribution better fits the provenance and location.
• A reasonable person can see both the “Yah” and the “Wah” of Upper Yahweh. The “He” a child can see.
• Further, that person could consider tiny letters consequential.
  • This, they could relate to other tiny inscriptions.
  • One example could be wedding ring inscriptions.
• A reasonable person could determine the tablet’s boustrophedon track appropriate.
  • They could presume that the tablet message may have only been meant for the eyes of God.
  • But, nevertheless, its track also makes basic sense even to men.
• Additionally, a reasonable person could determine that the tablet’s bottom bulges evidence of interior proto-alphabetic letters.
• Furthermore, part of Haughwout’s criticisms do more to strengthen rather than negate Stripling’s baseline conclusions.
  • Again, he acknowledges that the presence of proto-alphabetic letters signals a Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age date, i.e., 1400 to 1200 B. C.
  • Later, he acknowledges that “TMT”, Figure 7 #’s 18, 19 and 20 , comprise a proto-alphabetic word.

Despite the above, I conclude that Haughwout’s criticisms significantly advance scholarly debate about the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet. That includes the conclusions where I argue that he errs. Why? Such clearly stated, academically advanced reasonings as his engender a healthy scientific and scholarly quest for truth.

The stark exception is the claim of a “refutation”.

Why? His “refutation” pronouncement potentially harms science and scholarship. It can dishearten further investigation, quench funding pools, block excavation permits, and relax safety concerns for exigent evidence.

Such an announcement that falls short of an appropriate procedural standard, I perceive as a hindrance rather than an advance of the quest for truth.

As such, I decided to deny Haughwout’s “refutation” claim.

I therefore declare “Stripling’s article, “Safe!” Haughwout’s refutation attempt failed.

Next, I bring this memorandum to a conclusion!

Thank you for engaging this topic with me thus far!

The next post I simply entitle: “Curse Tablet Conclusion.”

I look forward to continuing with you 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: “Curse Tablet Conclusion”