BBC article Tuesday, 14 January, 2003

[Undomiel]

Did anyone else post this topic?

'Biblical Temple' tablet found


The tablet was reportedly found where the Temple stood

Israeli geologists say a purportedly ancient stone tablet detailing repair plans for the Jewish Temple of King Solomon is genuine, an Israeli newspaper has reported.
The fragment is said to date from the period of the Jewish King Joash, who ruled the area 2,800 years ago.

Our findings show that it is authentic



Shimon Ilani
Israeli Geological Institute

If officially authenticated, the find would be the first piece of physical evidence backing up biblical texts.

It could also intensify competing claims to the site in Jerusalem's Old City, where the stone is said to have been found, which go to the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Muslim clerics have denied any Jewish historical connection with the site, revered by Jews as the location of their biblical temples.

'Biblical' instructions

The blackened stone was unearthed during renovations by Muslim authorities on a mosque compound, known to Muslims as Haram as-Sharif and to Jews as the Temple Mount, according to the Ha'aretz daily.


The tablet is inscribed with ancient Phoenician
The incomplete sandstone tablet contains an inscription in ancient Phoenician in which a king tells priests to take "holy money... to buy quarry stones and timber and copper and labour to carry out the duty with the faith".

If the work is completed well, it adds, "the Lord will protect his people with blessing".

The words closely resemble descriptions in the biblical Book of Kings II and refer to King Joash.

The first Temple, Judaism's holiest shrine, was built by King Solomon and stood for 400 years before it was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC.

'Sensational' find

The tablet was examined by experts at Israel's Geological Institute.

"Our findings show that it is authentic," Ha'aretz quoted Shimon Ilani from the institute as saying.

Mr Ilani said carbon dating showed the tablet was inscribed around the 9th Century BC.

The stone was also said to have been found to contain microscopic gold flecks, which mean it may have existed in the Temple itself.

A top Israeli archaeologist, Gabriel Barkai, said that if the tablet was definitively authenticated, it would be a "sensational" discovery.

The director of the Islamic Trust that administers the mosque compound, however, denied that the tablet had been discovered there.

--------------

This is a very confusing article.

[Andrew]

I understand that the tablet has been shown a forgery.

[Undomiel]

JERUSALEM (JPS) -- A stone tablet inscribed with biblical passages in an ancient Phoenician script, which has generated some controversy in recent days, is a forgery, an international expert said Sunday.

"It is not just that I have serious doubts about its authenticity, but I believe it is a fake," Hebrew University archaeology Professor Joseph Naveh said.

Naveh, who viewed the sandstone tablet a year and a half ago, dismissed as "highly fishy" the positive assessment offered by the Israel Geological Institute last week that the tablet was likely to be real.

The 15-line inscription on the tablet describes Temple "house repairs" ordered by King Joash, who ruled Judea from 835-793 BCE and strongly resembles passages in the Second Book of Kings.

It is unclear who owns the tablet, which could be worth millions of dollars if found to be genuine, but its owner is being represented by former Cabinet secretary Isaac Herzog, who is a Labor Party candidate for the Knesset.

Naveh said Sunday that he was first contacted about the black stone tablet in the summer of 2001 -- months before the Geological Institute was approached -- when an anonymous caller asked him to verify its authenticity.

After being sworn to secrecy, Naveh was sent a photograph of the object. Already in doubt then, Naveh said that he asked to see the tablet in person.

In a scene out of a Robert Ludlum novel, a meeting was subsequently arranged at a Jerusalem hotel among the Israeli contact man, who introduced himself as "Tsur," a young Arab man who did not speak a word, and Naveh.

After a close inspection of the tablet, which included examining the "technical weaknesses" between a crack on the stone and the lettering on it, Naveh concluded that the tablet was a forgery. He noted that while most of the letter shapes are of ninth-century BCE Hebrew, others are typical of seventh-century Aramaic and Phoenician.

Naveh said Sunday that the tablet was likely made in the last century. He pointed out that he was told at the hotel meeting that the tablet was discovered by Palestinians outside the eastern wall of the Temple Mount compound, near a Muslim cemetery, but could not verify this.

Naveh noted that he kept his promise of secrecy until the Geological Institute issued a public appraisal on the tablet last week.

Together with Professor Yisrael Ephal of the Hebrew University, Naveh will publish his analysis on the tablet in the upcoming Israel Exploration Journal.

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030124/i45.shtml

So now battle will commence between the Israel Geological Institute and the archaeologist at Hebrew University?

[Undomiel]

JERUSALEM (RNS)--A 2,800-year-old stone tablet inscribed with a passage describing the renovation of Solomon's Temple has been discovered in Jerusalem and may be the first bit of archaeological evidence to confirm biblical descriptions of Solomon's dynasty and the elaborate house of sacrifice and worship the Bible says he constructed.
___Some experts, however, have cast doubts as to the authenticity of the artifact, partly because it surfaced recently in a Jerusalem antiquities dealer's shop rather than as part of an organized archaeological excavation.
___But Shimon Ilan and Amnon Rosenfeld, geologists at t
THE JOASH TABLET is written in Phoenician-Hebrew script, but experts are cautious to validate its authenticity.
he respected Israel Geological Survey, say scientific tests of the inscription's "patina" indicate the crust of age over the script is at least 2,300 years old.
___An analysis of the Phoenician-Hebrew script by Hebrew University scholar Ada Yardeni adds another 500 years to the age of the tablet, since the script resembles the kind of handwriting that was common around 800 B.C., during the 9th century B.C. rule of Judah's King Joash.
___"If it is authentic, it is a sensational find, no doubt," said Gabriel Barkai, a biblical archaeologist with Bar Ilan University who has examined high-quality photographs of the item.
___"It is the first royal inscription of one of the kings of Judah or Israel written in the name of the monarch himself. It is the first extra-biblical reference to the building of the first Solomonic Temple in Jerusalem, which is known only through the Bible."
___The inscription on the tablet, the size of a legal pad, describes temple renovations undertaken by Joash, a descendant of the Davidic dynasty, in language remarkably similar to passages in II Kings 12:1-6 and 11-17.
___In the Hebrew inscription, the king describes how his priests collected money from the public "to buy quarry stones and timber and copper" and asks that following the renovation work, "the Lord will protect his people with blessing."
___During a Scanning Electron Microscope test performed by Ilani and Rosenfeld, specks of carbon and microscopic globules of gold were discovered in the patina overlaying the inscription. A subsequent analysis was done by a laboratory in Florida.
___"From a scientific point of view, it's almost impossible to forge such a thing," said Rosenfeld of the tests.
___Ilani and Rosenfeld believe both the carbon specks and the gold globules may have gradually accumulated on the inscription after the tablet was buried in debris around 586 B.C., during the burning and destruction of the first Temple by Nebuchadnezzar II.
___According to Yardeni's analysis, the script used in the inscription gives the tablet an even older date than the carbon tests. The script resembles the Phoenician-Hebrew style of script that was used during the 9th century B.C. and has been found on two other rare inscriptions from the period.
___The find could be especially important because while the second Temple's retaining walls still stand in the center of Jerusalem's Old City, no First Temple remains have ever been uncovered in the Old City, a fact that has, in recent decades, generated doubts among some scholars about the accuracy of biblical passages describing Solmon's elaborate temple.
___The stone tablet first came to the attention of Ilani and Rosenfeld after an anonymous Israeli owner, who had reportedly purchased the tablet from an antiquities store, offered it for sale to the Israel Museum. The museum rebuffed the offer due to doubts of its authenticity, and the owner subsequently brought it to the Geological Survey to have it evaluated.
___Despite the lack of precise information on where the tablet was obtained, a report in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz cited unnamed sources as saying the artifact was uncovered during recent construction work underneath Al Aksa Mosque, the Muslim shrine that now sits atop the ancient Temple Mount.
___According to some theories, the tablet may have surfaced amid tons of debris carted away from the site when a number of ancient underground chambers beneath the mosque were converted into auxiliary prayer rooms.
___If the tablet is indeed authenticated and linked to the Temple site, it would have widespread political, as well as religious and archaeological ramifications, serving to strengthen longstanding Jewish claims to the disputed area.
___Muslim authorities have been adamant that no Jewish temple ever rested on the Temple Mount, site of the Al Aksa Mosque, despite the generally accepted fact the retaining walls of the second Temple from the time of King Herod remain.
___Among those skeptical of the tablet's authenticy is Steven Ortiz, assistant professor of archaeology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.
___"Based on the initial response by scholars on academic discussion lists," Ortiz said, "this new inscription is a hoax by someone who knows modern Hebrew and makes some basic mistakes in writing a Hebrew phrase found in 2 Kings 12.
--------------

So far, what I've learned is, the stone is 2800 years old. It contains some phoenician writing on it that is legitimate, and some hebrew writing that is suspected to be a forgery, correct? The hebrew writing is said to be more modern, in the last century, whereas the phoenician is the original writing on the tablet? This is really odd.

[Undomiel]

The article at Ha'aretz is the most interesting:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=274336

This Golan guy is apparently stealing and withholding archaeological treasures? What a trip.

[Undomiel]

The BIG Picture

[Undomiel]

And here's a way for anyone to translate the letters on the tablet for themselves:

http://hebrewresources.com/ancient-Hebrew.html

Supposed translation:

[A]haziah, k[ing … ]
[J]udah. And I made the […]
just as it was accomplished voluntarily,
from the heart in the land and
in the wilderness so in all the cities of Judah to
give great amounts of consecrated silver
in order to buy quarried stone and timber
and red bronze in order to complete
the work faithfully. And I fixed
the damage of the house and the surrounding walls
and the extension and the lattice work
and the steps and the niche and the
doors. And this day is
a testimony. Because the work is successful
Yahweh will send a blessing on his people.

[Undomiel]

Another interesting article:

Scholars are now debating whether the inscription is a forgery or not. Many forgeries exist in the antiquities market (where ignorant people pay big bucks thinking they are real), and these "professionals" have become quite proficient. It is entirely possible that this inscription is a fake.

On the other hand, many ancient inscriptions found in Israel, now believed genuine, have been challenged, including the Dan Inscription (1993), the Ekron Inscription (1995) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947-56).

To sum up one major argument for each side, those who believe it is a forgery believe that a phrase in the inscription (bedek habayit) reflects modern Hebrew usage, not biblical Hebrew. Those who believe it is authentic point to the tests of the geologists which determined that the inscription has been buried for more than 2000 years.

[Vorkosigan]

Undomiel:

The debate was over a few days ago when the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA), in a definitive scientific study, announced that this tablet was a blatant, cheap fogery.

The article is at Archaeology magazine:
Jehoash Tablet, James Ossuary fakes (http://www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=online/features/ossuary/index)

Rochelle Altman's devastating critique of this bogus object is here (http://www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=online/features/ossuary/index)

Hope these clear things up for you.

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

including the Dan Inscription (1993), the Ekron Inscription (1995) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947-56).

Tel Dan is probably real, although forgery has been suggested. However, the object was found in situ and it is widely believed to be genuine.

Nobody has seriously suggested the Dead Sea Scrolls are fakes.

Ekron also appears to be valid. Can you point me to some arguments on forgery for that one?

[Vorkosigan]

Undomiel, an excellent site for breaking news, scholarly articles and good bible stuff is www.bibleinterp.com, which has stuff from all over the academic spectrum.

Vorkosigan

[Peter Kirby]

Vorkosigan writes "Nobody has seriously suggested the Dead Sea Scrolls are fakes."

Although there is now no serious doubt, at the time of their discovery, there was serious doubt about the antiquity of the DSS, which were not considered modern forgeries but medieval productions by some.

Millar Burrows writes: "In our news release of April 11, 1948, we risked the statement that the Isaiah manuscript came from 'about the first century B.C.' Sukenik's release later in the same month also said that some of the manuscripts were 'more than two thousand years old.' This judgment did not stand long without challenge. As early as October 1948, Professor Solomon Zeitlin of the Dropsie College, without having seen any of the texts, included in an article on another subject an expression of doubt concerning the authenticity of the Habakkuk Commentary. In January 1949 he published an article declaring on the basis of a portion of the first two columns, of which a photograph had then appeared, that the commentary was not ancient but medieval in origin. The Manual of Discipline was assigned to the same period on the basis of one column which hade been published. Sukenik's first volume, which had come out meanwhile, receive equally cavalier treatment, with the conclusion, 'It seems that the entire find is not an important discovery but possibly a hoax.' The arguments marshaled then and later by Zeitlin against the antiquity of the scrolls are examined in Chapters IV and V of this book. They dealt chiefly with words and ideas which he maintained did not occur in Jewish writings before the Middle Ages. He denied categorically that commentaries on books of the Bible existed in earlier times." (The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1955, p. 31)

best,
Peter Kirby

[Undomiel]

Today @ 03:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130103#post130103)
Vorkosigan:

Undomiel, an excellent site for breaking news, scholarly articles and good bible stuff is www.bibleinterp.com, which has stuff from all over the academic spectrum.

Vorkosigan

Thanks!

[Undomiel]

The problem I have with the "forgery" analysis is the fact it still doesn't explain the age and condition of the thing as revealed by the Israel Geological Institute's study of it. They used some pretty high tech equipment to come to that conclusion. I think this is being downplayed, deliberately, because it would wreak all kinds of religious havoc and heightened conflicts between arabs and jews, if it were determined to be legitimate by all the authorities, rather than just the geologists who studied it initially.

[Vorkosigan]

Yesterday @ 04:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130127#post130127)
Undomiel:

The problem I have with the "forgery" analysis is the fact it still doesn't explain the age and condition of the thing as revealed by the Israel Geological Institute's study of it. They used some pretty high tech equipment to come to that conclusion. I think this is being downplayed, deliberately, because it would wreak all kinds of religious havoc and heightened conflicts between arabs and jews, if it were determined to be legitimate by all the authorities, rather than just the geologists who studied it initially.

Undomiel,

Sadly, the IGS analysis was -- not to put to fine a point on it -- incompetent. In Jehoash Tablet analysis they made a couple of very serious amateur mistakes, including misindentifying the rock type, and on both the Tablet and the Ossuary failed to find the fake patina. That is an extremely serious mistake, done twice. There are people out there who think the forger had a man inside the IGS, though I am not of that view, yet. In any case, an IGS staffer was on this new commission, so there is no fundamental disjunction between the new one and the old one. The IGS did not perform the necessary tests, as neither did the ROM. Those who claim they did are simply attempting to use the religious beliefs of others to harvest $$ and status for themselves. And that is sad.

Rochelle Altman's recently released updated discussion of the Ossuary is here:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/altmanupdates.htm

You should enjoy it very much.

Thanks for the correction, Peter. I always enjoy both your erudition and your thoughtful way of putting things.

Vorkosigan

[Undomiel]

Today @ 02:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130401#post130401)
Vorkosigan:



Undomiel,

Sadly, the IGS analysis was -- not to put to fine a point on it -- incompetent. In Jehoash Tablet analysis they made a couple of very serious amateur mistakes, including misindentifying the rock type, and on both the Tablet and the Ossuary failed to find the fake patina. That is an extremely serious mistake, done twice. There are people out there who think the forger had a man inside the IGS, though I am not of that view, yet. In any case, an IGS staffer was on this new commission, so there is no fundamental disjunction between the new one and the old one. The IGS did not perform the necessary tests, as neither did the ROM. Those who claim they did are simply attempting to use the religious beliefs of others to harvest $$ and status for themselves. And that is sad.

Rochelle Altman's recently released updated discussion of the Ossuary is here:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/altmanupdates.htm

You should enjoy it very much.

Thanks for the correction, Peter. I always enjoy both your erudition and your thoughtful way of putting things.

Vorkosigan


Vork,

All I could find was information on the Ossuary.

[Undomiel]

Yesterday @ 03:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130102#post130102)
Vorkosigan:

including the Dan Inscription (1993), the Ekron Inscription (1995) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947-56).

Tel Dan is probably real, although forgery has been suggested. However, the object was found in situ and it is widely believed to be genuine.

Nobody has seriously suggested the Dead Sea Scrolls are fakes.

Ekron also appears to be valid. Can you point me to some arguments on forgery for that one?

The site that initially discussed it, is here, but I doubt the authors of the site agree with that analysis: http://www.bibleplaces.com/samplenewsletter.htm

[Undomiel]

I think this is also pertinent to the discussion:

Adnan EI-Huseini, the Waqf's secretary general, has been quoted by the Israeli daily, "Ma'ariv," as saying: "This is no more than a joke. I'm convinced that the artifact was not found in the Temple Mount compound. It does not provide any proof to the existence of a temple." It is not clear whether the Palestinian position on the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount is a result of political strategy or religious belief. The former could change once a peaceful settlement is found, the latter may be seen as a sign of religious intolerance. Whatever their motivation, it is doubtful that the Waqf would have relinquished the tablet were it to be found inside the compound. By doing so they would prove how necessary it is to supervise over the earthworks they're conducting and they would also be undermining their own claims as to the history of the site.
http://wordofmessiah.org/yehoash_update.htm

-----

That's what worries me about this. IF there is archaeological evidence in the Temple Mount area of the existence of an ancient israelite temple, the fact it is under the authority of the muslims, leads me to believe they wouldn't bat an eyelash before destroying the evidence. They want to claim sole ownership of Temple Mount. Boy the complexities tied to this are incredible.

I found a huge article on the topic and opened a new thread for it. It's from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6227