Is it possible that over a century after Sir William Mathew Flinders-Petrie established the scientific methodology of biblical archaeology, the discipline is still controlled by dilatants and charlatans?
By Yuval Goren
Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures
Tel-Aviv University, Israel
January 2004
Introduction
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 made by Dr.Yair Bar El, former director of the Kfar Shaul Psychiatric Hospital in Jerusalem, involving 470 tourists who had been declared temporarily insane.[1] The Jerusalem Syndrome is a temporary state of sudden and intense religious delusions brought on while visiting or living in Jerusalem. Most of the hospitalized visitors were Jews, but many others were Christians. The clinical symptoms usually begin with a vague and extremely intense excitement. The patients often adopt "biblical" or otherwise eccentric clothing, sometimes merging their identity with that of a character from the Bible or having a strong feeling of mission. They typically adopt a lifestyle of religious observance and attach unusual significance to religious 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 behavior they cannot explain.
During the last decade and especially towards the end of the second millennium AD, a number of archaeological artifacts of unknown origin 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 officials, or Jesus Christ. This attribution is 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 their peculiar treatment by the scientific community may be interpreted as a milder symptom of the Jerusalem Syndrome. In what follows, I would like to present in short the narratives of some of these items as they relate to the hazardous role of the Jerusalem Syndrome in biblical archaeology.
The Moussaieff Ostraca
A pair of Late Iron Age ostraca, written by the same hand on different matters, will be the first subject of this discussion. Oded Golan, an antiquities collector from Tel-Aviv, sold these items to Shlomo Moussaieff, the well-known antique collector from London.[2] The first and most remarkable ostracon is an order by king Josiah of Judah to bring three shekels of Tarshish silver to the House of God. The second is a plea by a widow to an official for preservation of the rights over her property. After first being published in two scientific journals,[3] Hershel Shanks, the editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), published them in a series of articles in his journal under bold headlines and with particular reference to the first ostracon as one of the only material evidences of the Solomonic Temple in Jerusalem, its text having been authenticated by the renowned Semitic epigrapher André Lemaire of the Sorbonne.[4] The BAR articles also referred to the results of scientific examinations that were conducted on the patina covering the letters by the Microfocus Oy laboratory in Helsinki.[5] The examinations of the patina revealed that it had two phases – the first carbonatic and the other siliceous -- indicating its sequential deposition over the inscription. The researcher concluded that this sequential deposition was evidently slow and natural, hence proving the antiquity of the inscription below. Therefore, the patina and the deposits on the surface seem to have developed naturally during burial. No modern elements or materials including adhesives were detected.[6]
However, shortly after the first publication in BAR, there were some skeptical voices. Several scholars referred to the ostraca as being "too good to be true".[7] Moreover, in a review article in the Israel Exploration Journal, the epigraphers Israel Eph'al and Yosef Naveh of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem suggested that by their text and style the inscriptions may be modern forgeries, including a puzzle of syntax and letter styles from various published epigraphic sources.[8] As a result of these uncertainties, the owner decided to submit the ostraca for more detailed laboratory examinations. This time, the sherds, the ink, and the patina of the two ostraca were examined in the laboratories of Aventis Research and Technologies, a biotechnological corporation based in Frankfurt, Germany, with branches in the United States. A detailed report by the head of the laboratory and a fellow researcher suggests that the two ostraca are modern fakes.[9] The analytical results clearly demonstrate that prior to the process of patina deposition a sharp tool was used to modify the letters. The simulated patina that was then applied over the inscription contained modern paraffin, lime, and some ash. From this data, it is evident that the results of Microfocus were somewhat out of focus.[10] It is of interest to note that in the recent discussion on the authenticity of the ostraca in the last May-June volume of BAR, the Aventis results are completely overlooked by the editor.[11]
The Jerusalem Lamp
A first-century-AD oil lamp with seven nozzles made of Senonian chalk and decorated with Jewish motifs is the next subject of this discussion. The same antiquities collector from Tel-Aviv shared this item with another Israeli antiquities collector.[12] Extremely well preserved, the lamp is remarkable in its unique combination of seven nozzles, the depiction of the temple menorah and a set of icons representing the seven species of crops with which the Holy Land was blessed. The lamp was brought for study to Varda Sussman, an expert in ancient oil lamps, prior to a proposed publication in BAR, under bold headlines, as the only tangible evidence from the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem.[13] The proposed article also referred to the results of scientific examinations that were conducted on the patina covering the lamp by the two co-authors, Drs. Shimon Ilani and Amnon Rosenfeld from the Geological Survey of Israel. Samples of the patina were studied using a scanning electron microscope equipped with an energy dispersive spectrometer to investigate the element content and analyzed under ultraviolet light. A special examination was made to check whether modern contamination or adhesives are involved in the patina. The examinations of the patina revealed that it had two phases – the first carbonatic and the other siliceous -- indicating its sequential deposition over the lamp. In their report, Ilani and Rosenfeld indicated that the patina and the deposits on the artifact’s surface seem to have developed naturally during burial. No modern elements or materials including adhesives were detected.[14]
However, shortly after the submission of the article for publication in BAR, there was a skeptical voice. Varda Sussman referred to the lamp as being "too good to be true."[15] In her part of the article, she hinted that by its style the lamp might be a modern forgery, including a puzzle of motifs from various published sources. As a result of this uncertainty, Hershel Shanks, the editor of BAR, decided to reject the paper from publication. In his letter to the authors, the editor explained as follows: “For authenticity Mrs. Sussman says she relies mostly on the geologists. Oddly, they do not confront the issue of authenticity directly. They seem to assume it. All they can say is that the authenticity must be made on the basis of stylistic interpretation. And Mrs. Sussman has already told us she cannot do this.”[16]
The James Ossuary
It is of interest to note that despite these harsh words, it was Mr. Shanks who accepted only a few months later and without any questioning the authenticity evaluation made by Ilani and Rosenfeld to another first-century-AD artifact made of Senonian chalk.[17] This time it was a modest stone ossuary bearing the Aramaic inscription Yaakov bar Yoseph, Achui de Yeshua, namely "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." The same antiquities collector from Tel-Aviv owned this item. After its first presentation in a dramatic press conference, Mr. Shanks published the item in a series of articles in his journal under bold headlines and with reference to the ossuary as one of the only material evidences of Jesus Christ, its text having been authenticated by Prof. André Lemaire of the Sorbonne.[18] These publications also referred to the results of the scientific examinations that were conducted by Ilani and Rosenfeld, with subsequent tests by scientists from the Royal Ontario Museum.[19] The samples were studied using a scanning electron microscope equipped with an energy dispersive spectrometer to investigate the element content and analyzed under ultraviolet light. A special examination was made to check whether modern contamination or adhesives were involved in the patina. In their report, Ilani and Rosenfeld indicated that the patina and the deposits on the artifact's surface and the inscription seem to have developed naturally during burial. No modern elements or materials including adhesives were detected.
However, shortly after the first publication in BAR, there were some skeptical voices. Several scholars referred to the ossuary as being "too good to be true." Moreover, in a review article in the Bible and Interpretation website, epigrapher Rochelle Altman forgery, including a puzzle of syntax and letter styles from various published epigraphic sources.[20] Such view was later suggested also by Prof. Frank Moore Cross of Harvard University.[21] As a result of these uncertainties, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) decided to submit the ossuary for more detailed examinations. This time the inscription and the patina of the ossuary were examined by a group of independent epigraphers and geoarchaeologists from various institutions and universities in Israel. In a detailed report by Avner Ayalon from the Geological Survey of Israel and by me, the inscription on the otherwise authentic ossuary is suggested as being a modern fake.
The analytical results clearly demonstrate that after the natural patination process a sharp tool was used to create or modify the letters. Fake patina was then applied, containing chalk powder that was dissolved in hot water and then used to cover the freshly cut inscription. By this method, the fake patina could not be distinguished from the authentic one by the use of the rather unsophisticated method of ultraviolet light nor by simple chemical analyses that only yielded the presence of calcium carbonate at both the authentic and fake patinas. However, with the combination of micromorphologic study and the examination of the isotopic ratios of oxygen and carbon within the calcite, it became clear that the patina covering the freshly cut letters was artificial and completely different from the patina covering the rest of the surface of the ossuary.[22] Evidently, as had been noted in an earlier case, the previous scientists who examined the inscription did not confront the issue of authenticity directly. They seemed to assume it. Still, it is of interest to note that in the discussions on the authenticity of the ossuary in the subsequent issues of BAR and on the Internet, the IAA results were challenged by various extremely intellectual arguments.
For example, it was said that the ossuary was placed by the collector's mother on her balcony where it was constantly washed with tap water which somehow changed the isotopic composition of the calcite but only inside the inscription, not around it. It was claimed that someone used a sharp tool in modern times for vigorously cleaning the letters prior to their cover by the patina, which was still considered authentic and naturally developed over a long period of time. Another defender of the authenticity of the inscription suggested that the inscription was cleaned by acid which changed the isotopic composition of the oxygen in the patina covering the script.[23] The last comment is especially remarkable for its lack of understanding of even basic chemistry. Shanks' co-author of the book "James, Brother of Jesus" even implied that the IAA committee, composed only of Jewish scholars, had a hidden theological agenda against the Christian world.[24] All these arguments, expressing more than anything else the depth of scientific integrity of their presenters, are not worth any further comment.[25]
The Jehoash Inscription
A black stone tablet bearing an engraved Hebrew inscription in Phoenician script is the next subject of our discussion. An attempt was made to sell this item to the Israel Museum by a representative of the same antiquities collector from Tel-Aviv.[26] This remarkable tablet bears an inscription commemorating the repairs made by King Jehoash of Judah to the House of God. After first being published in the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz,[27] the editor of BAR published it in a series of articles in his journal under bold headlines and with the remark that if authentic, it is one of the only material evidences of the Solomonic Temple in Jerusalem.[28] The articles also referred to the results of the scientific examinations that were conducted by Drs. Shimon Ilani and Amnon Rosenfeld of the Geological Survey of Israel. The latter studied samples of the patina and the rock.
He used a scanning electron microscope equipped with an energy dispersive spectrometer to investigate the element content and X-ray diffraction and inductively coupled plasma spectrometry to study the mineral and element composition. A special examination was made to check whether modern contamination or adhesives could be detected within the patina. The examinations of the patina revealed that it had two phases -- carbonatic and siliceous -- indicating its sequential deposition over the inscription. In their report, Ilani and Rosenfeld indicated that the patina and the deposits on the artifact's surface and the inscription seem to have developed naturally during burial. No modern elements or materials including adhesives were detected.[29] These observations led Ilani and Rosenfeld to sweeping, even fantastic, conclusions[30] that were later omitted from the published report, most likely by the editorial board.
However, shortly after publication in Ha'aretz and elsewhere, there were some skeptical voices. Several scholars referred to the tablet as being "too good to be true".[31] Moreover, epigraphers Israel Eph'al of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Frank Moore Cross of Harvard University suggested that by its text and style the inscription is a modern forgery, including a puzzle of syntax and letter styles from various published epigraphic sources.[32] At the same time, I criticized the conclusions reached by Ilani and Rosenfeld regarding the authenticity of the patina over the inscription.[33] As a result of these uncertainties, the IAA decided to submit the inscription for more detailed examinations. This time the inscription and the patina coating were examined by the same group of unrelated epigraphers and geoarchaeologists from various institutions and universities in Israel. In a detailed report by Avner Ayalon from the Geological Survey of Israel and by me, the Jehoash inscription is suggested as being a modern fake.
The analytical results clearly demonstrate that prior to the artificial patina process a sharp tool was used to create the letters. Fake patina was then applied, containing a mixture of iron-rich clay, some ancient charcoal, and chalk powder that was dissolved in hot water and then poured over the freshly cut inscription. By using this method, the fake patina could not be distinguished from an authentic one by simple chemical analyses that only yielded the presence of alumina, silica, and calcium carbonate. However, with the combination of micromorphologic study and the examination of the isotopic ratios of oxygen and carbon within the calcite, it became clear that the patina covering the freshly cut letters was artificial.[34] Evidently, as had been noted in an earlier case, the previous scientists who examined the inscription did not confront the issue of authenticity directly. They seemed to assume it.
Discussion
It is only due to the limits of space that I do not go on and on with similar narratives. A hundred and thirty years after the exposure of the naïve and crude biblical forgeries of Moses Wilhelm Shapira, it seems that biblical archaeology did not learn the lesson and has completely forgotten its implications. Recently, I had the dubious pleasure of examining a seemingly endless line of fake biblical texts of various kinds. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of such forgeries referring especially to the time of the First Temple. It will not be an exaggeration to say that the disciplines of biblical history and archaeology have been contaminated to such an extent that no unprovenanced written source seems to be reliable anymore. To put it even more bluntly, the sciences of Hebrew epigraphy and philology are nothing but a fool's paradise. The question arises: are we playing here with science or with science fiction? Is it possible that, as in the popular movie "The Matrix," we all live in a virtual world that was programmed for us by aliens and operated by a well-organized system of naïve scientists, media tycoons, andother messengers, who manipulate us so we can live calmly inthe virtual reality that they created for us?
Is it possible that over a century after Sir William Mathew Flinders-Petrie established the scientific methodology of biblical archaeology, the discipline is still controlled by dilatants and charlatans? As we all still hope that most of the scientists involved in this saga were motivated only by true scientific purposes, we must ask how could some of them be so naïve, ignore any sense of objectivity and be trapped in the crude pitfalls set by the forgers? Considering the nature of the fakes in question, the answer to this question may lie in the domain of psychology. The forgeries discussed here are not merely fakes of ancient artifacts. They are relics, intended to manipulate the emotions of scientists and the public alike by using the attribution to biblical events.[35] These forgeries were intended to infect collectors, museums, scientists, and scholars with the Jerusalem Syndrome in orderto boost their market price and attract public attention.
We biblical archaeologists must now decide whether we are ready to remain in a fool's paradise or fight back in order to bring back science into our discipline. For my grandfather, who was a very orthodox Jew, the question whether there was a temple in Jerusalem or not was completely irrelevant to the depth and sincerity of his faith. He never needed a dubious ostracon, written in dodgy biblical Hebrew and coated by a layer of modern lime and wax, to make his belief stronger. I am confident that the discovery of the James Ossuary has not served to bring more people into the belief in the historicity of the Gospels. Perhaps the opposite is true. But for those of us who care about the future and integrity of biblical archaeology and history, the Jerusalem Syndrome in archaeology is a question of life and death -- either we fight against it, or we lose any trace of scientific dignity.
Addendum: Final blow or just a blow?
Avner Ayalon* and Yuval Goren**
* Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel.
** Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Recently, geologist James A. Harrell reviewed (in the non-peer reviewed BAR) our analytical results concerning the James Ossuary under the flaunting heading: "Final blow to IAA report: flawed geochemistry used to condemn James inscription."[36] Despite this dramatic heading that was presumably put there by the editors, Harrell's "final blow" to our conclusions is that the patina covering the inscription on the James Ossuary was either faked or recreated by cleaning. Harrell's arguments for the "flawed geochemistry" seem to be as strong as the final conclusion of his commentary. In what follows, we address them in short:
1. "Both scientists specifically point out that their statements are not final reports and that they will publish their complete findings later in a professional journal."
Harrell referrs in his article to the abstract published by the IAA in the June 2003 press conference. Harrell never bothered to contact any of us for the data nor for clarifying some misunderstandings that he seemingly had. We assume that Harrell knows that it takes some time for a scientific article to be refereed and accepted for publication in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal. Still, between the press conference (June 2003) and now, our scientific paper was accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Science.[37] Harrell could easily have asked for a pre-print of the article and received it (as did the BAR managing editor per his request).
2. "Ayalon assumed (but did not demonstrate) that calcite is the primary, if not the only, mineral on both the ancient patina and the inscription coating."
Based on EDS analyses, the "letters' patina" as well as the "non-inscriptional parts" are composed of CaCO3.
3. "For Ayalon's hot-water scheme to work, the limestone would have to be dissolved in a hot acid-water solution and then the calcite crystallized by evaporating the solution. However, a coating made this way would have an acid residue and so give away its origin. To test for this possibility, the inscription coating needs to be chemically analyzed, but this has not yet been done."
(a) The calcite could have precipitated directly from the hot water itself (the same as the "cattle-stone" precipitates). There is no need to dissolve ground calcite.
(b) The acid involved in patina formation in nature is carbonic acid (H2CO3) formed as rainwater passes through the coil and dissolves soil-CO2. Once this acid is used, heating the water will result in CO2-degassing and CaCO3 precipitation with no acid residue. This could have been done artificially by using the same acid and without leaving any trace for it.
4. "…the ancient patina is clearly not pure calcite — its brownish color must be due to either iron oxides, clay minerals, and/or organic matter, all of which contain oxygen. The inscription coating also may not be pure calcit."
Harrell is completely wrong. The ancient patina is made of CaCO3, the same as the inscription coating. Moreover, to liberate CO2 gas from the CaCO3 for mass-spectrometric analysis, we use dry phosphoric acid (H3PO4). In this reaction, iron oxides, clay minerals, and other silicate minerals, which may be present in very small amounts, do not react with the acid. Harrell, as a stable-isotope geochemist, should also know that in the mass-spectrometer we analyzed the isotopic composition of CO2 gas liberated in the reaction and NOT the isotopic composition of oxygen (O2) gas.
5. "Ayalon dismisses out of hand the one sample of inscription coating whose δ18O value fell within the range of the ancient patina…. Ayalon is showing his bias by not allowing for the other possibility: that the word Jesus (where the samples came from) is truly ancient. This, plus the fact that one member of the IAA committee observed traces of ancient patina in the "brother of Jesus" part of the inscription, provide two solid pieces of evidence supporting the inscriptionis antiquity."
Carried away with his arguments, Harrell forgot to mention that luckily we have analyzed three letters from the word "Yeshua" (Jesus). The δ18O of the patina sampled from the other letters was very negative, -10.2 permil (for the letter "Shin" of "Yeshua") and -7.7 permil (for the letter "Vav"). Only the last letter ("Ain") had a normal value; hence, our interpretation for this phenomenon is not the result of bias but the only logical possibility.
6. "For the moment, all we can say is that the oxygen isotope results are equally consistent with two possible interpretations:
1. The inscription is a modern forgery that was coated with faked patina; OR
2. The inscription is ancient but was cleaned in modern times with the coating produced either inadvertently as a result of cleaning or intentionally to disguise the cleaning."
Both options suggested by Harrell agree with our conclusion that the "letters' patina" was not formed under natural conditions that prevailed in the Jerusalem area in the last 2000 years. Therefore, the title of his article "flawed geochemistry used to condemn James inscription" is strange/puzzling, to say the least.
Notes
[1] Bar-El,Y., Durst, R., Katz, G., Zislin, J., and Knobler, H.Y. “Jerusalem syndrome.” The British Journal of Psychiatry 176 (2000): 86-90.
[2] Gaon, B. “Blazing stones.” Ma’ariv daily newspaper, 6 Mar. 2003 (Hebrew).
[3] Bordreuil, P., Israel, F., and Pardee, D. “Deux ostraca paléo-hébreux de la Collection Sh. Moussaieff.” Semitica 46 (1996): 49-76. Bordreuil, P., Israel, F., and Pardee, D. “King’s command and Widow’s Plea. Two new Hebrew ostraca of the Biblical Period.” Near Eastern Archaeology 61 (1998): 2-13.
[4] Shanks, H. “Three Shekels for the Lord, ancient inscription records gift to Solomon’s Temple.” Biblical Archaeology Review Nov./Dec. 1997:28-32. Shanks, H. “The ‘Three Shekels’ and ‘Widow’s Plea’ ostraca: real or fake?” Biblical Archaeology Review May/June 2003:40-45.
[5] Hornytzkyj, S. “Preliminary analysis report on six terracotta artefacts.” (1997) Unpublished report submitted by Microfocus Oy laboratory, Helsinki. (6 text pages + 8 figures and graphs).
[6] Shanks, 1997 (above, note 4).
[7] Gaon, 2003 (above, note 2).
[8] Ephal, I., and Naveh, J. “Remarks on the recently published Moussaieff ostraca.” Israel Exploration Journal 48/3-4 (1998): 269-273.
[9] Land, H-T., and Feucht, G. “Expertise, Sample No. PE 257-1, Sample No. PE 257-5.” Undated and unpublished report submitted by Aventis Research & Technologies, Frankfurt (15 text pages including figures and graphs).
[10] From reading the original report (above, note 5), it becomes evident that although modern materials were detected and the crystalline features of the calcite in the patina of the two ostraca differed from those of the reference group, the researcher still suggested that the patina of the former might be original. This was based on the presence of amorphous silica (actually from the opalline phytoliths within the grassy ash) and a siliceous layer coating, the otherwise calcitic patina. However, such composition and microstructure may be created artificially by mixing commercial burnt lime with grass ash (made mostly of opalline phytoliths) because of the pozzuolanic reaction and the formation of calcium-silica gel. The micron-sized bipyramidal structure of the calcite crystals in the ostraca patina, as observed by SEM, indicates their crystallization from burnt lime. For a detailed discussion on these features in plaster products and further references, see: Goren, Y., Goring-Morris, A.N., and Segal, I. “The technology of skull modeling in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB): Regional variability, the relation of technology and iconography and their archaeological implications.” Journal of Archaeological Science 28/7 (2001):671-690.
[11] Shanks, 2003 (above, note 4).
[12] Gaon, 2003 (above, note 2).
[13] Gaon, 2003 (above, note 2).
[14] V. Sussman, personal communication.
[15] Gaon, 2003 (above, note 2).
[16] V. Sussman, personal communication.
[17] Shanks, H., and Witherington III, B. The Brother of Jesus, the Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family. (2003). HarperCollins Publishers, New York, pp. 16-21.
[18] Lemair, A. “Burial box of James the brother of Jesus, earliest archaeological avidence of Jesus found in Jerusalem.” Biblical Archaeology Review Nov./Dec. 2002: 24-33, 70.
[19] Shanks and Witherington III, 2003 (above, note 17), pp. 16-21.
[20] Altman, R. “Official report on the James ossuary.” Bible and Interpretation (2003).
[21] Cross, F.M. “Discussion Between Frank Moore Cross, Andre Lemaire And Hershel Shanks” Biblical Archaeology Society (2003).
[22] Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., and Goren, Y. “Authenticity examination of the inscription on the ossuary attributed to James, brother of Jesus.” Journal of Archaeological Science (in press).
[23] Lemaire, A. “Israel Antiquities Authority report deeply flawed.” Biblical Archaeology Society (2003). Keall, E.J. “New tests bloster case for authenticity.” Biblical Archaeology Society (2003).
[24] Witherington III, B. “Bones of contention, why I still think the bone box is likely to be authentic.” Christianity Today (2003).
[25] For a full and relatively updated review of the James Ossuary affair, see: Ransom, I. Mary and the Ossuary, Beneath the “Brother of Jesus Forgery” (2003). USA: Xlibris Corporation (city of publication unmentioned).
[26] Gaon, 2003 (above, note 2).
[27] Shragai, N. “The Geological Survey: ‘The Jehoash Inscription’ is not a forgery.” Haaretz daily newspaper, 14 Jan. 2003 (Hebrew).
[28] Shanks, H. “Assessing the Jehoash inscription.” Biblical Archaeology Review May/June 2003: 26-31.
[29] Ilani, S., Rosenfeld, A., and Dvorachek, M. “Archaeometry of a stone tablet with Hebrew inscription referring to repair of The House.” Israel Geological Survey Current Research 13 (2002): 109-116.
[30] Shragai, 2003 (above, note 27) quotes some of these fantastic conclusions regarding the gilded temple’s walls burning over the Jehoash inscription (after being set in fire by Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard of Nabuchadnezzar, the King of Babylonia).
[31] Shragai, 2003 (above, note 27).
[32] Cross, F.M. “Notes on the forged plaque recording repairs to the temple.” Israel Exploration Journal 53/1(2003): 119-122. Ephal, I. “The ‘Jehoash Inscription’: a forgery.” Israel Exploration Journal 53/1 (2003): 124-128.
[33] Goren, Y. “The authenticity of the Jehoash inscription: an alternative interpretation.” Bible and Interpretation 2003. Goren, Y. “An alternative interpretation of the stone tablet with ancient Hebrew inscription attributed to Jehoash, King of Judah.” Bible and Interpretation 2003.
[34] Goren, Y., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., and Schilman, B. “Authenticity Examination of the Jehoash Inscription.” Tel Aviv (2004, in press).
[35] Silberman, N, and Goren, Y. “Faking biblical history, how wishful thinking and technology fooled some scholars – and made fools of others.” Archaeology Sept./Oct. 2003: 20-29.
[36] Harrell, J.A. “Final blow to IAA Report: Flawed geochemistry used to condemn James inscription.” Biblical Archaeology Review Jan./Feb. 2004.
[37]Ayalon, et al. in press (above, note 22).