Jehoash Inscription

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

[edit] Text of the Inscription

Provisional Translation of the YI English Translation The YI 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 YI (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. [1]

[edit] 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 must therefore remain nameless.

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 the police. They found scores of artifacts, ancient seals and other inscriptions in various stages of production and tools. Under harsh questioning, Golan admitted that he knew about the Jehoash Inscription and promised to hand it over.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 and indicate that the patina in the inscription had been manipulated after the June 2003 declaration of the IAA. Quote,

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

[edit] Scholarly 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." [2]

[edit] Main sources

 This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations.
You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ 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
  2. ^ 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

[edit] External links