Scholars Want 'Fake' Jehoash Inscription to Be Reexamined 

The scholarly furor over the so-called Jehoash inscription has broken out again, nine months after an Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) committee pronounced it a forgery (...) But [now] four leading scientists have asked Education Minister Limor Livnat for a new committee to be appointed to evaluate the inscription. The group includes Prof. Haim Cohen of the department of Hebrew Linguistics, Bible, and the Ancient Near East of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev; Prof. Yoel Kronfeld, of the faculty of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences of Tel Aviv University; Dr. Gabriel Barkay of the department of Land of Israel Studies at Bar-Ilan University; and Dr. Yoel Elitzur of the departments of Language and Land of Israel Studies at Herzog College in Alon Shvut (...) The four scholars calling for the establishment of a new committee to consider the authenticity of the inscription claim that the IAA committee was one-dimensional, and that expert opinions and interpretations from Israel and elsewhere were not brought to bear on the evidence. "Scholars who expressed the clear opinion that the inscription was a forgery were invited to the committee," Prof. Cohen noted, "while those who believed otherwise, such as the two scientists from the Geological Institute, were disqualified." The four scholars also said that "professional errors were made in dealing with the issue, which led to hasty conclusions." The group said that they were not sure of the authenticity of the inscription, however "we are far from outrightly rejecting it, as the IAA committee has." "There is nothing philological in the inscription that attests to its being a forgery," Prof. Cohen, a philologist, noted. "I can categorically refute all the evidence that my colleagues have brought up in concluding that it is a forgery," Cohen stated. "I can explain everything written there from a linguistic point of view as suited to the biblical period, to the period of Jehoash, the ninth century BCE. And I am not the only philologist who thinks so." With regard to the claim that because Oded Golan is the source of the inscription, aspersions should be cast on its authenticity, Cohen noted, "Golan has a lot of explaining to do. There are a lot of questions about his behavior. He needs to answer to the police on these matters, and if necessary in court, but our task is to fully examine his claims that the inscription is authentic, and this has not been done. I personally find it difficult to believe that Golan has the expertise to carry out such a high level forgery. We are dealing with one of two things. Either the inscription is authentic, or the forger is a genius, and I find it difficult to believe that Golan is a genius." 

By Nadav Shragai - Haaretz.com - March 09, 2004

Responses to the Epigraphic Forgery Crisis: Casting Down the Gauntlet to the Field and to Museums

During recent years, the public has often been inundated with sensational stories of “new epigraphic discoveries”: the “Ya‘akov Ossuary” (“James Ossuary”), the “Jehoash Inscription,” “the Moussaieff Ostraca,” and the “Ivory Pomegranate” are some of the most notable. Dominant voices have touted such epigraphs as being of great significance “for the field” and “for the faith.” Voices of caution and moderation (that note the absence of an archaeological pedigree and the potential of forgery) have been quelled with substantial success. 

By Christopher A. Rollston and Heather Dana Davis Parker, Emmanuel School of Religion, Graduate Seminary

Bible and Interpretation - March 2005

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/ParkerRollston_Epigraphic_Forgery.htm

The Antiquities Market, Sensationalized Textual Data, and Modern Forgeries: Introduction to the Problem and Synopsis of the 2004 Israeli Indictment 

On Christmas Eve 2004, the Israel Museum announced that one of its most cherished acquisitions, the Ivory Pomegranate, was a modern forgery. [1]The inscription reads (arguably); "Qds khnm lb[yt yhw]h"; that is, "Holy (Object) of the Priests, Belonging to the T[emple of Yahwe]h." [2] It has often been referred to as a "prized artifact" and even said to have probably come from a "priestly scepter" used in the "Temple of Solomon." [3] After the Israel Museum's announcement, the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Police of Israel subsequently indicted five people for the production and sale of various modern forgeries. The international news media labeled it a "forgery conspiracy." (...) Although the raison d'etre for this issue of the SBL Forum is indeed the current crisis revolving around the written materials vetted on the antiquities market, its purpose is not simply to reflect on the crisis. Rather, the larger goal is to consider the factors that have contributed to the problem, to propose the implementation of methodologies for the field that will purge corrupt materials (e.g., forged) from the datasets used for scholarly discussion, and to attempt to reduce the credulousness and sensationalism that has been regnant at times both in the field and in the public realm. The articles published here are intended to be disinterested, and often methodological in nature; that is, there has been a conscious effort to avoid participation in the sensationalism, polar reactions, and misinformation that have plagued many discussions during recent past (...) This introduction will consist of a summary of the Israeli indictments, an introduction to some of the problems revolving around the antiquities market, and a critique of some of the factors that compound the problem. Most of these articles focus on the subject of forgeries, but with differing emphases. This issue concludes with a reflective epilogue. We believe that each contribution serves an important function within this context. 

By Christopher A. Rollston and Andrew G. Vaughn - SBL Forum - March 2005

http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=373

The Forgery Indictments and BAR: Learning From Hindsight

The recent indictments in Israel for the forgery of antiquities has caused some much needed soul-searching within academia on the problem of forged or stolen antiquities. Many feel that if the spread of these items is allowed to proceed unchecked, with tacit acceptance or even active participation from scholars, it will cause a crisis — not merely of conscience, but of the historical evidence on which the reconstruction of the past is built. Along with this self-examination, scholars might also wonder if factors outside the academy, but influenced by it, have contributed to the problem. The media and media publicity, for instance, might bear part of the responsibility for a too hasty acceptance of epigraphic evidence or an over-eager move towards wider publicity before the necessary work of sifting, testing, and authenticating has been done. In hindsight, these questions are particularly pertinent for those popular journals that mediate between the academy and mainstream news outlets. I am thinking particularly of the popular magazine Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) and its editor, Hershel Shanks. Consider, if you will, some of the artifacts at the center of the recent indictments: the "James brother of Jesus" ossuary, the Jehoash tablet, the two Moussaieff Ostraca, the "fingerprint" bulla ascribed to Baruch, son of Neriah, (...) and the seal of "Abdi, servant of Hoshea." (...) All of these objects received wide public attention in the pages of BAR. (...) In three of the cases (the ossuary, the bulla, and the seal) the BAR article was the first official publication. In a sense, of course, BAR was just doing its journalistic job by conveying to its readership information about important new finds. Nevertheless, there may be another sense in which BAR and Shanks have unwittingly contributed to the creation of these "finds." How can this be so? Most of these reflections about responsibility in terms of publication and publicity are clear only in hindsight, but I suggest that we should use this opportunity of hindsight to help us all (scholars and editors alike) reflect about how to proceed in the future. As we consider how BAR might have contributed to, and been a catalyst for, the problem, let us begin with what may be the first of the forged artifacts, the "ivory pomegranate." The story begins with epigraphist André Lemaire...

By Edward M. Cook - SBL Forum - March 2005 

http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=371

The Crisis of Modern Epigraphic Forgeries and the Antiquities Market: A Palaeographer Reflects on the Problem and Proposes Protocols for the Field 

The number of Northwest Semitic inscriptions appearing on the antiquities market continues unabated. Some of these epigraphic objects are genuine (i.e., ancient) inscriptions, but have appeared on the market as a result of illicit excavations (...) Some of these epigraphic objects, however, are modern forgeries. It should be safe to presume that because of the presence of modern forgeries on the antiquities market, vigilance and caution would be the modus operandi of specialists (and non-specialists) within the field. Sometimes, however, credulousness has actually been regnant of late. This suspension of critical judgment has precipitated at least two crises: (1) The dataset of ancient Northwest Semitic has been corrupted with modern forgeries, and (2) the general public has become suspicious about the capacity of the field 
to produce and convey reliable information. The purpose of this article is to discuss various aspects of the forgery crisis, including some of the assumptions that foster it, and to propose various protocols for the field so as to protect the dataset of Northwest Semitic. 

By Christopher A. Rollston - SBL Forum - March 2005 

http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=370

The Probability of Forgeries: Reflections on a Statistical Analysis

The past few years have witnessed intense interest in inscriptions that have originated in the antiquities market. More than a few cover articles in Biblical Archaeology Review have been devoted to the topic, and dozens of pages of the journal have been generated to treat these inscriptions. These inscriptions have also found a place in peer-reviewed journals and other scholarly publications (...) Other print media have followed suit, and the interest and publicity reached a climax at the very end of 2004 with the coverage of a reputed forgery conspiracy by international news organizations (...) While it is impossible to know all the reasons behind this interest, there are several reasons that are not hard to understand: many of the inscriptions mention well-known biblical figures; there are romantic stories surrounding the discovery of these inscriptions; and there are even controversies and conspiracy theories. These are things that journalists and publishers love. All of these factors have resulted in much publicity and an intense interest in whether or not these inscriptions are authentic. For one of the authors of this essay (Vaughn), this interest reached a crescendo shortly after the discovery of the so-called James Ossuary. Soon after its discovery, several people called Vaughn and asked him what he thought. He soon received photographs and more details via e-mail. There were calls from reporters as well as colleagues at other schools. He shied away from the reporters, but he told his colleagues that he was, in general, skeptical. His immediate reason for skepticism was that the inscription violated his TGTBT rule. What does TGTBT mean? Quite simply "too good to be true." 

By Andrew G. Vaughn and Carolyn Pillers Dobler - SBL Forum - March 2005 

http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=372

The Jerusalem Syndrome in Biblical Archaeology 

The Jerusalem Syndrome is a clinical psychiatric diagnosis first identified in the 1930s by Dr. Heinz Herman, one of the founders of modern psychiatric research in Israel. Subsequent research was conducted by Dr.Yair Bar El, former director of the Kfar Shaul Psychiatric Hospital in Jerusalem, involving 470 tourists who had been declared temporarily insane (...) The Jerusalem Syndrome is a temporary state of sudden and intense religious delusions, brought on while visiting or living in Jerusalem. The clinical symptoms usually begin with a vague and extremely intense excitement. The patients often perform "biblical" or otherwise eccentric activities, having a strong feeling of mission. They typically adopt a lifestyle of religious observance and attach unusual significance to biblical relics. The most interesting feature, considering the extreme behaviors associated with the Jerusalem Syndrome, is that the subjects sometimes have no prior history of psychiatric difficulty and exhibit none afterward. These patients, if they recover, are typically embarrassed by their behavior, which they cannot explain. During the last three decades, a number of unprovenanced archaeological artifacts have surfaced on the local antiquities market. A common feature of these artifacts is their reference to Jerusalem through attributions to major biblical landmarks or personalities such as the Jerusalem Temple, Judahite kings and other biblical officials, or Jesus Christ. This attribution may be made both on the item through a dedication text, and about it through opinions by persons who are sources of authority in various scholarly fields. Methodologically, it seems that this peculiar treatment of these artifacts by members of the scientific community may be interpreted as a milder symptom of the Jerusalem Syndrome. In what follows, I would like to present brief narratives of several such items, as they relate to the hazardous role of the Jerusalem Syndrome in biblical archaeology.

By Yuval Goren - SBL Forum - March 2005 

http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=374

*

Leia também:

Epilogue: Methodological Musings From The Field 

By Andrew G. Vaughn and Christopher A. Rollston - SBL Forum - March 2005

http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=376

Response to the Forgeries Issue

I have just read the SBL Forum (3/3) of March 2005 on "Forgeries," co-edited by Andrew Vaughn and Christopher Rollston. I found many good things in it, but also several mistakes and omissions that led to an unbalanced presentation. A quick glance at the authors of the contributions shows clearly that the Forum's presentation is one-sided. For a true forum, the editors should not only have invited Yuval Goren, but also sought out a contribution from specialists in the relevant material sciences who have a different opinion than Goren. Also not balanced is the systematic criticism of BAR without a response from BAR itself. I agree completely that there a crisis, but it will not be solved seriously and scientifically with a one-sided approach. I would like to see a "Round Table" discussion, bringing together specialists in West Semitic epigraphy and in material sciences, yielding detailed arguments about each disputed inscription (if possible, outside of the pressure of the media) and with the purpose of finding the best ways and the best technical examinations to distinguish genuine inscriptions from forged ones. Until then, having worked in the field of West Semitic epigraphy for 38 years, I would like to present some preliminary reactions to the various contributions in the SBL Forum so that it starts to become a balanced discussion. (Actually, the contributions to the SBL Forum are generally either already published or are revised versions of published or still-to-be published papers, so that my reaction is not completely new, even if not published before.) 

By André Lemaire - SBL Forum - March 2005

http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=379

*

Leia as respostas a Lemaire em:

Reply to André Lemaire

By Christopher A. Rollston - SBL Forum - April 2005

http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=385

e

Response To Lemaire

By Edward M. Cook - SBL Forum - April 2005
http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=386