captivatingtwists.com

Tag: Mark Haughwout

  • A Refutation?

    A Refutation?

    Sizing the Opposition I

    [Ebal’s Plea, twenty-one of thirty-two]

    I now aim at capturing relevant arguments of the numerous critics of Stripling’s article.

    Yet, I discuss the work of only one, Mark S. Haughwout, a respected Hebrew scholar and instructor at the Indian Bible College, Flagstaff, Arizona.

    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.

    Jesus healing the paraplegic

    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.

    Photo by Arturo Au00f1ez. on Pexels.com

    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?

    For assistance I turn to an American court procedure.

    This our next post explores.

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

    One-Time
    Monthly
    Yearly

    Make a one-time donation

    Make a monthly donation

    Make a yearly donation

    Choose an amount

    $5.00
    $15.00
    $100.00
    $5.00
    $15.00
    $100.00
    $5.00
    $15.00
    $100.00

    Or enter a custom amount

    $

    Your contribution is appreciated.

    Your contribution is appreciated.

    Your contribution is appreciated.

    DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
    Dinner-bouquet-option
    Dinner bouquet option / Digging for Truth, Two
    Dinner-bouquet-option
    Dinner bouquet option /
  • Between WWN, Sun, and Earth

    Between WWN, Sun, and Earth

    Sizing the Opposition II

    [Ebal’s Plea, twenty-two of thirty-two]

    The last post sets up our story’s tension. Stripling claims that his artifact challenges scholarly world history. Haughwout counters that he has disproved such.

    How do we resolve this? I suggested turning to an instrument of the American courts.

    That instrument is summary judgment. Via it courts adjudicate civil cases absent a trial.

    The procedure aids in balancing justice and fair play and the need for judicial economy.

    Here I use it for comparison and contrast.

    How does summary judgment work? Imagine yourself as the plaintiff seeking redress for a perceived wrong. At some point in pre-trial proceedings the opposing party files a motion for summary judgment. Both parties brief their respective positions. Afterward, the court issues its decision.

    If the court agrees with the opposition and grants summary judgment in full against you, you lose, end stop! Barring an appeal–a costly, time consuming, and dicy affair, your case is caput. In effect, it has been deemed unworthy of further consideration. You get no opportunity for a trial.

    Comparable Consequences

    With this I draw a parallel with Haughwout’s “refutation”. By analogy he claims an iron clad case for in effect scholarly and journalistic summary judgment.

    Henceforth, Stripling’s positions, Haughwout suggests, qualify in effect only for grocery aisle tabloid offerings of the latest Big Foot and Freddie Mercury sightings.


    Photo by Jack Sparrow on Pexels.com

    He figuratively contends that he has rendered Stripling’s arguments unfit for further serious scholarly or public consideration.


    BIGFOOT VS. ALIENS!

    HAIRY HERO DEFENDS HOME TURF AGAINST SPACE INVADERS!

    9 May 2006-Weekly World News

    Photo by Gabe on Pexels.com

    DA VINCI WAS A TIME TRAVELER!

    5 August 2006-the SUN


    Photo by Henry Acevedo on Pexels.com

    With Haughwout a sizable contingent of authors and professional commentators seem to agree.

    This a quick online search confirms. Google “Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet”. There you soon encounter offerings such as these:

    • “New Studies Debunk Controversial Biblical ‘Curse Tablet’ from Mt. Ebal”;1
    • “New academic articles heap fresh doubt on Mount Ebal ‘curse tablet’ interpretation;”2
    • “Academic article on controversial 3,200 year-old ‘curse tablet fails to sway experts;”3
    • “Hook, Line, and Sinker: Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet Debunked?;”4
    • “Don’t Be Fooled by the Mount Ebal Curse Tablet.” 5
    • “The Mt. Ebal “inscription” is actually a Folding Lead Clasp.”6

    Delve deeper into these and you encounter statements from scholarly professionals like these:

    • “This article is basically a text-book case of the Rorschach Test, and the authors of this article have projected upon a piece of lead the things they want it to say.” So advises Prof. Christopher Rollston, an expert in Northwest Semitic languages and the chair of the Department of Classical and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at George Washington University7;
    • “The images made it clear that there are no discernible letters on this piece of crumpled lead,” said Rollston. “And again, the authors’ drawing of the letters bears no real similarity to what is present in the images;”8
    • “One big nothingburger”, says Dr. Robert Cargill, as cited previously, a Bible scholar and professor at the University of Iowa.9

    Articles and opinions pro and con are, of course, appropriate. The scholarly process thrives on such.

    The scholarly world, however, should also honor justice and fair play.

    The question is whether such really operates here.

    Not only has Haughwout figuratively filed a motion for summary judgment in the court of scholarly and public opinion against Stripling’s claims.

    Apparently too that court has in large part granted the motion. In other words, among much of the scholarly and journalistic community the Stripling claims are considered caput.

    Real consequences ensue from this figurative adjudication.

    This includes loss of possible funding. Maybe it quells a future academic / scientific endeavor by Stripling. For example, it could entail the loss of permit requests for further Mt. Ebal excavations.

    Questions arise:

    • Is this figurative adjudication just?
    • Should Haughwout’s claim meet some minimal standard?
    • Is not too much at stake to allow otherwise?

    In sum, how do we arrive at an appropriate fair answer to all of these?”

    Contrasting summary judgment and scholarly “refutation” suggests one.

    This I will discuss in our next post.

    Next post: “Rule 56”

    1. See: http://www.haaretz.com-Archaeology November 20, 2023. ↩︎
    2. See: http://www.timesofisrael.com -new -academic- December 7, 2023. ↩︎
    3. See: http://www.timesofisrael.com -academic -article, May 14, 2023. ↩︎
    4. See: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org-daily, December 4, 2023. ↩︎
    5. See: Dr. Gad Barnea- Youtube,m.youtube.com -watch, June 2, 2023. ↩︎
    6. The Mt. Ebal “Inscription” is actually a Folding Lead Clasp …
      YouTube·Bible & Archaeology·Dec 2, 2023       ↩︎
    7. Melanie Lidman, Academic article on controversial 3,200 -year old ‘curse tablet’ fails to sway experts, The Times of Israel, 14 May 2023, paragraph 18, https://www.timesofisrael.com/ academic-article-on-controversial-3200-year-old-curse-tablet-fails-to-sway-experts/, (7 October 2024). ↩︎
    8. Id., paragraph 37. ↩︎
    9. The Mt. Ebal “Inscription” is actually a Folding Lead Clasp …
      YouTube·Bible & Archaeology·Dec 2, 2023       ↩︎
    One-Time
    Monthly
    Yearly

    Make a one-time donation

    Make a monthly donation

    Make a yearly donation

    Choose an amount

    $5.00
    $15.00
    $100.00
    $5.00
    $15.00
    $100.00
    $5.00
    $15.00
    $100.00

    Or enter a custom amount

    $

    Your contribution is appreciated.

    Your contribution is appreciated.

    Your contribution is appreciated.

    DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
    Dinner-bouquet-option
    Dinner bouquet option / Digging for Truth, Three
    Dinner-bouquet-option
    Dinner bouquet option /
  • Rule 56

    Rule 56

    Sizing the Opposition III

    [Ebal’s Plea, twenty-three of thirty-two]

    In our last post we observed similarities between Haughwout’s “Refutation” and summary judgment.

    Today we explore an important contrast.

    Resultantly, we answer a question previously pondered: How do we determine if Haughwout’s declaration is just?

    The contrast is this: an authoritative guideline directs a court’s decision on summary judgment. On the other hand, no guide exists for evaluating Haughwout’s “refutation” claim.

    For a U. S. Federal District Court that authoritarian guide is Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    In part it reads:

    “…The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.”

    Admittedly that is a bit of a mouthful.


    Photo by ZERO 2 LIFE on Pexels.com

    In fact, significant portions of treatises address those sentences.

    Yet, my purpose in citing Rule 56 at this point is not for us to wholly wrap our heads around it.

    Rather, it is largely to illustrate a few points.


    Photo by Tim Mossholder on Pexels.com

    One is that the U. S. Supreme Court, the authority behind Rule 56, recognizes summary judgment as a severe pronouncement requiring a standard.

    Second, before issuing such, a lower federal court must record its compliance with Rule 56’s specific elements of justice and fair play.

    What does this suggest for our situation?

    It is that we should do likewise.

    We should adopt a standard for “refutation” that elicits some sense of justice and fair play and apply it in writing.

    Our standard, of course, will lack the authority of the U. S. Supreme Court.

    Nevertheless, there is value in stating some standard. Others can then understand how we arrived at our decision. From thence they will be better able to direct their criticism or approval.

    What should be our standard?

    This I discuss in our next post.

    Next post: “A Hypothetical Rule”

    One-Time
    Monthly
    Yearly

    Make a one-time donation

    Make a monthly donation

    Make a yearly donation

    Choose an amount

    $5.00
    $15.00
    $100.00
    $5.00
    $15.00
    $100.00
    $5.00
    $15.00
    $100.00

    Or enter a custom amount

    $

    Your contribution is appreciated.

    Your contribution is appreciated.

    Your contribution is appreciated.

    DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
    Dinner-bouquet-option
    Dinner bouquet option /
    Donner-bouquet-option
    Dinner bouquet option / Digging for Truth, Four