Jehoash Inscription

In January 2003, an artifact, dubbed the Jehoash Inscription, appeared in Israel. It was rumored to have surfaced in the construction site or in the Muslim cemetery near the Temple Mount of Jerusalem. It supposedly described repairs made to the temple in Jerusalem by Jehoash, son of King Ahaziah of Judah, and corresponded to the account in "2 Kings" 12. The owner was an anonymous antiquities dealer in Hebron. The Geological Survey of Israel (GSI) initially backed up this claim too.

The "find" also reignited the conflict between Muslim authorities on the Temple Mount and the Israeli group of Temple Mount Faithful, who declared that the find was a divine sign that the al-Aqsa Mosque of the Temple Mount should be demolished and the new temple built on it immediately.

In the unfolding scandal already surrounding the James Ossuary, criticism appeared again. Israeli historian Nadav Na'aman, who had theorized that the books of the Kings could be based on public inscriptions, opined that a possible forger could have used his theory as a basis. Epigrapher Joseph Naveh of the Hebrew University revealed to the IAA and police that he had met the owners of the stone and had recognized the inscription as a collection of Hebrew, Aramaic and Moabite letters. Frank Cross of Harvard University noted various errors in spelling and terminology. Yuval Goren of Tel-Aviv University demonstrated how the convincing fake could be produced by abrasive airbrushing. The stone itself remained hidden.

By 2008, in what has been termed "one of the biggest forgery scandals ever in the history of archaeology", it has become known that an Egyptian, Samah Shoukri Ghatas, had confessed to manufacturing the Jehoash inscription for Oded Golan. Golan, a well-known Tel Aviv antiquities collector, is presently on trial for the forgery. [ [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974483.html The art of authentic forgery] by Nadav Shragai Haaretz, 14/04/2008]

Text of the Inscription

;I. Prologue (lines 1-4)

[I am Yeho’ash, son of
A] hazyahu, k [ing over Ju] dah,
and I executed the re [pai] rs.

;II. Body of the inscription (lines 4-14)

When men’s hearts became
replete with generosity in
the (densely populated) land and in the (sparsely
populated) steppe, and in all the cities of Judah, to
donate money for the sacred
contributions abundantly,
in order to purchase quarry
stone and juniper wood and
Edomite copper/copper from (the city of) ’Adam,
(and) in order to perform
the work faithfully (= without corruption),—
(Then) I renovated the
breach(es) of the Temple
and of the surrounding
walls, and the storied structure,
and the meshwork, and the winding stairs,
and the recesses, and the doors.

;III. Epilogue (lines 14-16)

May (this inscribed stone) become this day
a witness that the work has succeeded,
(and) may God (thus) ordain his people with a
blessing.Cohen, Chaim, "'BIBLICAL HEBREW PHILOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF RESEARCH ON THE NEW YEHO’ASH ROYAL BUILDING INSCRIPTION", in Lubetski, Meir, editor, NEW SEALS AND INSCRIPTIONS, HEBREW, IDUMEAN, AND CUNEIFORM, Hebrew Bible Monographs, 8, SHEFFIELD PHOENIX PRESS, 2007]

Police investigation

Israeli magazine "Maariv" correspondent Boaz Gaon reported that IIA Theft Unit had focused their attention of the "Jehoash Inscription" as being an expensive bait to defraud a prominent collector in London. Israeli investigators linked a phony business card and a phone number to a Tel Aviv private eye who admitted that his employee was Oded Golan, the collector who owned the James Ossuary. Oded denied that he was the owner of the stone and claimed that the real owner was a Palestinian antiquities dealer who lived in an area under Palestinian Authority and could not be identified.

A March 19, 2003, article in "Maariv" told that court had issued a search warrant for Golan's apartment, office and rented warehouse. The search brought forth allegedly incriminating documents and photographs of Golan beside the Jehoash Inscription. Under interrogation, Golan promised to reveal the location of the stone in exchange for immunity from prosecution.

Then police made a new search in storage space that Golan had rented in Ramat Gan but had not disclosed to them. There the police found scores of artifacts, ancient seals and other inscriptions in various stages of production along with the tools to create the imitations. Under harsh questioning, Golan admitted that he knew about the Jehoash Inscription and promised to hand it over.

IAA commission

Limor Livnat, Israeli Minister of Culture, mandated the work of a scientific commission to study the suspicious find, as well as the James Ossuary.

The commission concluded that various mistakes in the spelling and the mixture of different alphabets indicated that this was a modern forgery. The stone was typical to western Cyprus and areas further west. Patina over the chiseled letters was different from that of the back of the stone and could easily be wiped off the stone by hand. In a press conference in Jerusalem on June 18 2003 the IAA commission declared the inscription a modern forgery.

On the other hand in a long and in depth 70 pages article based on 3 years of research, Professor Haim Cohen from the Ben Gurion University in Israel stated "it can not be proven philologically to be a modern day forgery". the article was published on December 2007 in the "Biblical Hebrew Philology in the Light of Research on the New Yehoash Royal Building Inscription", New Seals and Inscriptions, Hebrew, Idumean and Cuneiform.

Other research, which will be published during 2008 by Dr. Shimron and other researchers, points out that the allegedly irregular isotopic values that were measured on the tabled by the Israeli Geological Institute fit the isotopic values that were measured in patina on stones from the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem. Stones that were found in legal excavations. These comparisons were never done before. It should be noted that ancient organic materials were also found in tests done to the patina on the Jeoash Tablet in the Beta Analytic labs in Florida. These findings supporting the originality of the tablet, join previous opinions given by different specialists who have examined the stone such as Professor Wolfgang Krumbein, Dr. Shimon Ilani, Dr. Amnon Rosenfeld, Professor Victor Sasson and more who have determined the stone is indeed ancient. During the legal proceedings it was revealed that in the temple mount excavations, additional ancient stones were found on which there were traces of gold, the same that was found on the Jeohash Tablet. But these findings were never published in the excavation reports.

External expert report

An external expert report, dated September 2005, Professor Wolfgang E. Krumbein, a world-renowned authority of the Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg Germany, threw new light on the controversy. His conclusions contradict those of the IAA:

The grainy whitish patina with yellow and grey particles embedded existing priorto 2005 and documented by the IAA as "James Bond" material looks like Meyercement used around 1900-1920 at the Acropolis Monuments in Athens and otherplaces. Unfortunately these materials are presently no longer existing on theossuary and have been totally eliminated for reasons unknown.5) The pictures further document recent (2005) addition of a reddish sticky orpowdery and also rock staining material. In places also scratches and dark (black)material was recently added. These materials do not exist in photographicdocuments prior to 2005.

Professor Krumblein concludes that "Our preliminary investigations cannot prove the authenticity of the three objects beyond any doubt. Doubtlessly the patina is continuous in many places throughout surface and lettering grooves in the case of ossuary and tablet.On the other hand a proof of forgery is not given by the experts nominated by the IAA." [See his full report at http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_krumbeinsummary.asp]

cholarly Opinion

In an article published in 2007, Professor Chaim Cohen of Ben Gurion University wrote, "long-standing position concerning the authenticity of the YI as follows: In order to remove any possible doubt concerning my position as regards the authenticity of the YI, I wish to emphasize at the outset that I do not know whether or not this inscription is genuine. I do contend, however, that it can not be proven philologically to be a modern-day forgery. I would also add that if nevertheless the YI does turn out to be a forgery, then it is a most brilliant forgery in my opinion."

Victor Sasson responds that "the sandstone inscription needs not be the first and original record. If the stone itself cannot scientifically be dated to late ninth century B.C.E., then the "text" could be a later copy of an original inscription... We do indeed have a reference to a possible renovation or restoration of an inscription. The author of the Tell Fakhriyah Assyrian-Aramaic bilingual inscription, dated to the mid-ninth century B.C.E., speaks of a possible future renovation of his inscription." [Sasson, Victor. Philological and Textual Observations on the Controversial King Jehoash Inscription, "Ugarit Forschungen" Vol. 35 (for 2003 but published in 2004).]

Main sources

* Neil Asher Silberman and Yuval Goren, "Faking Biblical History", "Archeology" magazine, September/October 2003
* [http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chadwick_Indications.htm Dr Jeffrey Chadwick, "Indications that the 'brother of Jesus' inscription is a forgery"]
* Jonathon Gatehouse, "Cashbox", 'Maclean's' magazine, March 2005
* Sasson, Victor. King Jehoash and the Mystery of the Temple of Solomon Inscription. iUniverse, Paperback, 240 pages, March 28, 2008.
* Sasson, Victor. A response to N.A. Silberman and Y. Goren's article in the form of a letter to "Archaeology" magazine was not accepted by that magazine (letter date, October 2003). It was eventually published in the listhost.uchicago.edu [ANE] in early March 2004. The letter is also in "King Jehoash and the Mystery of the Temple of Solomon Inscription," pp. 90-92.Nofootnotes|date=February 2008

ee also

* Biblical archaeology
* Archaeological forgery
* Nebra skydisk

References

External links

* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4133065.stm Israel antiquities forgers charged (BBC)]
* [http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1103858784168&p=1078027574097 Museum deems sole First Temple relic a fake (Jerusalem Post)]
* [http://www.BiblicalArcheology.Net Resources on Biblical Archaeology]
* [http://www.rom.on.ca/ossuary/ossuary_intro.html Descriptions and pictures from the Royal Ontario Museum, including arguments for its authenticity.]
* [http://www.orientalisti.net/ioash.htm The So-Called ‘Jehoash Inscription’: Photo, Transcription and Bibliography]
* [http://www.davidrowan.com/2005/05/is-oded-golan-behind-biblical.html Is Oded Golan behind biblical scholarship's biggest fraud ring?] Daily Telegraph magazine, May 2005.
* [http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/solomon_prog_summary.shtml King Solomon's Tablet of Stone] Summary and transcript of BBC Horizon tv science documentary (2004).
* [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974483.html The art of authentic forgery] by Nadav Shragai Haaretz, 14/04/2008