Last Leg

The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet

Follow Through I

[Ebal, twenty-nine of thirty-four]

This memorandum has not reached its destination.

It must now follow through. The remaining posts, the last leg of our journey, accomplish this.

I set out to explain my response to three questions about the Curse Tablet and Joshua’s Altar. They were:

• Should regional and international actors stir?
• Should they finish excavations at Joshua’s Altar?
• Should they spend the necessary financial, political, and other resources?

To all, I replied, “Yes!”

We have established that a major critic’s attempt to disprove Stripling’s claims failed.

By extension, I argue that we have also defeated others’ attempts to disprove. Why? Haughwout did a good job of raising most, if not all, of the salient arguments against Stripling’s claims.

Thus, further exploration at Mt. Ebal has scientific and archaeological merit.

But Joshua’s altar lies in a war zone. Plus, it lies in the world’s most geopolitically sensitive area.

The question now is this: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”

Are the potential artifacts and scientific evidence of sufficient value? Is it worth inserting a nation into a conflict zone? Is it worth meddling in this volatile area?

The next few posts address this.

First, we will consider the caliber of the evidence that might still lie on Mt. Ebal. I will do this in the next post.

Then, in two posts, I will consider how the U. S. or some other nation could best excavate Joshua’s Altar.

Following that, I discuss what actions we, as individuals, should take.

Afterwards, my conclusion brings this memorandum to an end.

Now for a question: Do you agree that Haughwout summarized the main qualms of most critics of Stripling’s claims?

Next Post: Ebal’s Juice

To view the memorandum from the beginning, click here.