Tag: Shebnayahu

Objective Analysis V

[Ebal”s Plea, thirty of thirty-two]

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

Haughwout entitled his article “A Refutation.”

On that he doubles down in his conclusion. There he states,

“The only substantiate 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.

This evaluation,I have measured against a standard.

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

Further, I determined that Haughwout’s material fact–the contested, indispensable one–is that:

At least one of the following statements is true:

• The tablet does not contain proto-alphabetic script, that 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.

I find that a reasonable person could genuinely dispute this.

Haughwout thus failed in his endeavor.

Here is a list of points which I deem 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.
  • Besides evidence suggests that this Late Bronze Age spelling persisted through to the eight century B. C. Tomb of Shebnayahu and beyond.
• The crack lines of Aleph, Figure 7, #25 and Table 2, (3 a 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 with other tiny inscriptions.
  • One example could be wedding ring inscriptions.
• A reasonable person could determine the tablets boustrophedon track appropriate.
  • They could presume that the tablet message may have only been meant for the eyes of God.
  • But, neverthless, its track also makes basic sense even to men.
• A reasonable person also could determine that the tablet’s bottom bulges evidence 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 signal 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 Haughwouts criticisms significantly advance scholarly debate about the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet. That includes the conclusions on which 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? To science and scholarship his “refutation” pronouncement potentially causes harm. It can dishearten further investigation, quench pools of funding, block excavation permits, and slacken safety concerns for potential exigent evidence.

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

As such my decision is to deny Haughwout’s “refutation” claim.

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

Next, I proclaim this memorandum’s conclusion!

Next post: “Curse Tablet Conclusion”