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:
: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
: 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?
For assistance I turn to an American court procedure.
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.
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.
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). ↩︎
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.”
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.
In the last post I concluded that Haughwout’s scholarly refutation should satisfy a standard. Such I discerned might resemble Federal Code of Civil Procedure Article 56.
Here I propose such a standard clothed in a hypothetical.
Why the dressing?
This supplies context.
Rule 56 has hefty substance behind it, the United States’ highest court and an abundance of case law.
My standard has none, other than an appeal to fair play and justice.
The hypothetical supplies at least imaginary substance and authority which makes the standard easier to conceive.
My proposed rule and its hypothetical context is as follows:
The world’s first mega trillionaire founded the Sovereign Isles of Scholarandria. At first, he bought the main isle. Later, he acquired a score of surrounding ones.
The isles he populated with thinkers and tinkerers of the highest order. Monthly stipends with accommodations for families he provided.
In time, he established a renowned university.
The isles prospered growing in wealth and population.
Eventually, they achieved nationhood.
That brings us to the heart of this tale.
Journals at Scholarandrian University have published two competing peer review articles. These discuss a tablet found on a Samaritan mountain. Quite a stir these instigate among the Isle’s archaeological, epigraphical, historical, and religious communities..
The first article by Dr. S. Ling makes fantastic claims about this artifact.
The second by M. S. Wout alleges to have refuted, i. e. disproved those claims.
Several influential Scholarandian citizens believe Dr. Ling’s position worthy of regard, even action.
A vocal delegation of citizenry, however, especially from the archaeological, religious, and epigraphic communities, vehemently denounce Ling’s claims as “silly”, “a nothingburger”, “a classic case of pareidolia.”
Most of each camp, nevertheless, dismiss the ruckus as simply normal academia at work.
That was until a recent event unfolded in the Isles’ news media.
An extremely rich governor of one of Scholarandria’s southern most isles approached the Prime Minister with this proposition:
“I will fund an archaeological expedition to the Samaritan mountain.
There I aim to complete excavation of its controversial archaeological site. I ensure employment of the brightest minds in all fields necessary for a successful expedition. At their disposal will be the latest and finest scientific tools and processes.”
He asked the PM only this:
“Use your clout with the United Nations to achieve these two concessions:
an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel to allow this excavation; and
a contingent of armed U. N. peace keepers to protect the archaeological work.”
Subsequently, the nightly news aired word of the PM / Governor meeting.
Resultantly, the previous ruckus intensified exponentially.
One side emphasized that an excavation risks the tenuous peace of a war torn region.
Acknowledging such, others nevertheless stressed the necessity of immediate excavation to protect historically precious artifacts–ones that potentially clarify how mankind’s distant past clarifies the present and future.
Others declare that the evidence supporting Dr. Ling’s claims fails to meet the simplest tests of credibility.
Alarmed about political ramifications, the PM seeks the advice of the Isle’s Commission on Scholarship (SCOS).
Subsequently, that Commission issued this press release:
“The Scholarandrian Commission on Scholarship (SCOS) finds the consternation brewing over the Samaritan Mountain issue refreshing. Why? This tumult reflects Scholarandrians’ active engagement in matters of intellectual concern.
Another aspect of this tumult we also find gratifying. We note that our SCOS Code contains longstanding provisions that address a core issue of this controversy.
The parties involved we thus encourage to avail the provisions found in SCOS Code Provision 56.”
The press release continued by highlighting pertinent sections of that provision:
Prov. 56
“Prologue: Many times in the past a university peer review journal has published an academic paper. Then later it or another publishes an article allegedly refuting, i. e.. debunking, the previous article. In other words, the succeeding article’s language manifests a conscious disproval rather than a denial of the original paper’s accuracy.
For these situations the Isle’s Commission on Scholarship implements this provision:
Be it known that the Commission finds that:
When one peer review article of this Isle alleges to debunk another previously issued article, significant negative consequences can adhere for the author of the alleged debunked article. That being so we provide the following optional remedy:
The original article’s author can file with the Commission a formal challenge to debate the merits of the disproval.
The cost of this will be three Scholarandrian crypto coins (about $100,000.00)
This challenge the original journal and the debunking one must publish in their next edition.
From the date of that publication the author of the “debunking” article shall have sixty days to respond.
To do so they must:
Deposit three Scholarandrian crypto coins with the Commission in order to “Call” the disproval challenge; or
Absent issuing the “Call”, allow the 60 days to elapse. This will trigger his/ her article’s publisher printing a retraction, one that must effectively convert the article from a “disproval” to “a challenge of accuracy.”
Note that owing to the largesse of the Governor, Dr. Ling almost immediately posts his three coins.
Mr. Wout timely follows suit.
The news release continued:
Prov. 56 (Continued)
On challenge and acceptance being issued the Commission will appoint an independent arbiter to resolve the conflict.
Guess who they appoint? That is right! It is me!
As such, I have already overseen building the record, briefing, etc. as Prov. 56 requires.
That material the journal articles here and here encapsulate.
Additionally, Prov. 56 mandates:
Prov. 56 (Continued)
The arbiter’s written decision must:
Include a list of the matter’s material facts, that is, controverted facts that are indispensable to the disproving article’s claims; and
Grant the “disproval” if a reasonable persons could not genuinely dispute the material fact(s); and
Deny the “disproval”, if otherwise.
SCOS Code Prov. 56 concludes:
Prov. 56 (Continued)
The party to whom the arbiter renders a favorable decision shall receive four Scholarandian crypto coins, the Commission one, and the arbiter one.
I wish!
Real World Application
We return now from my fantasy island.
Nevertheless, I endorse the Scholarandrian Code’s wisdom. It approximates the summary justice article of U. S. Code of Civil Procedure Article 56. It doing so it provides an objective measure for balancing academic economy with fair play.
Thus, I intend to follow it in dealing with our real world Stripling v. Haughwout.
captivatingtwists.com 