My Adjudication

Dissecting the Arguments VI

[Ebal, twenty-eight of thirty]

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

Note

This is the twenty-eighth post of my memorandum on the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet. It is also the sixth 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.

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 declares that he disproved Stripling’s contentions.

I measure this claim against a standard similar to that set out by the U.S. Supreme Court. The High Court’s standard governs summary judgment in our federal system.

Here is my measure to decide for Haughwout. I must find that a reasonable person could not genuinely dispute the material fact(s) of his claim. 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”–” and “YHW”, or
• A Hebrew of before 1250 B. C. did not inscribe the tablet.

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

Haughwout thus failed in his try.

Here is a list of points that support my adjudication:

• The deviation from Yahweh of three to four letters has a reasonable explanation. Later, scribes added the “Heh” to capture the understood vowel ending, in this case, an “eh” sound.
• A smart scribe used “Wah” in place of the vowel in “ARWR”. Here is why:
  • The substitution makes phonetic sense.
  • Also, the evidence suggests that this Late Bronze Age spelling persisted. The example is the eighth century B. C., Tomb of Shebnayahu.
• The crack lines of Aleph (Figure 7, #25, and Table 2, (3a & b) do not make a smooth intersection with the horns. Thus, it is reasonable to deduce that the cracks intersect with a well-drawn figure.
• Affiliating the artifact with the Mountain of Curses seems reasonable. The scriptural scenario makes better sense than the suggested alternatives. That is, those of 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 was only meant for the eyes of God.
  • But its track also makes basic sense even to men.
• Additionally, the tablet’s bottom bulges evidence interior proto-alphabetic letters.
• Furthermore, part of Haughwout’s criticisms do more to strengthen Stripling’s baseline conclusions.
  • Again, he acknowledges that proto-alphabetic letters date the tablet to 1250 to 1400 B. C.
  • Later, he acknowledges that “TMT” (Figure 7, # 18, 19 & 20) comprises 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 points 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” can harm science and scholarship. This can manifest in two ways. This includes quenching funding and blocking permits.

Such hinders truth.

Thus, I decided to deny Haughwout’s “refutation”.

So I declare “Stripling’s article, “Safe!” from Haughwout’s claim.

Next, I bring this memorandum to a conclusion!

But beforehand, here are some questions: Do you agree with my adjudication? Why or why not?

Let me know in the comment section below.

Thank you for engaging with this topic thus far!

The next post I will title: “Curse Tablet Conclusion.”

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: “Curse Tablet Conclusion“