Tag: Heritage Science

Opposing Voices I

[Ebal, twenty-one of thirty]

Many influential scholars criticize Stripling’s claims about the Curse Table. A significant number consider this prominent archaeologist’s Heritage Science article largely debunked.

Here, I consolidate my discussion of those criticisms. This I do by focusing on the work of Mark S. Haughwout, a respected Hebrew scholar at the Indian Bible College, Flagstaff, Arizona.

My name is Ernie Vallery. I am a retired Louisiana attorney living now in South Coast Massachusetts.

This is my twenty-first post contending 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, read on.

There are a couple of reasons for this.

For one, he does an admirable job of not only giving his thoughts but of summarizing the main views of other prominent voices.

The second reason is that his publisher, Heritage Science, the same publisher as Stripling’s article, is free and easily accessible online.

This, of course, makes a lay person’s review of his work feasible.

Before considering the body of Haughwout’s article, let us spend some time with his title–“Mt. Ebal curse tablet? A refutation of the claims regarding the so called Mt. Ebal curse tablet.”

A key word is “refutation”.

Merriam-Webster defines this as “the act or process of refuting”.

For the root word, “refute”, it gives these alternative definitions:

1. : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2. : to deny the truth or accuracy of

The meaning of each differ markedly.

Which did Haughwout intend?

Does Haughwout prove Stripling’s claims false or does he simply deny their truth?

To underscore the vast difference in these ideas consider Matthew 9:5 NIV.

Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?

Matthew 9:5 NIV

Of course, the answer is the former.

Similarly, simply denying the truth of Stripling’s claims is one thing. Actually proving that they are wrong is another.

So which is it? How can we know?

By happenstance, Haughwout answers himself. His conclusion 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.”

By using the word “refutation” in his title, Haughwout thus declares that he has disproved Stripling’s claims, not that he merely disputes them.

We thus perceive that Haughwout’s and Stripllng’s ideas are decidedly in opposition.

One alleges that the Ebal tablet depicts something profoundly important.

The other claims to have refuted, i. e. disproved, those contentions. Essentially, he declares, “Currently, this tablet presents nothing of consequence.”

One says, “Take notice world! This artifact likely challenges scholarly history.”

The other declares that he has shown otherwise. Thus, scholarly communities and serious journalistic ones should largely ignore the claims about this artifact.

Esteemed professionals back each. A respected scientific journal published both. Peer reviewers vetted both.

How do we resolve this tension?

Whose arguments should carry the day?

This our next posts explore.

Thank you for reading!

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 really encourages!

Next post: “Between WWN, Sun, and Earth”