Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Thanks for your post, Lewis.

>This seems to me exactly backward.  Unless there is reason to suppose the
>artifact a fraud, one should accept it as genuine.  That is contradicts
>onre's current ideas is not a reason to suppose it fraudulent . None of the
>examples are apposite here.

With the Tel Dan inscription I'm in no position to comment on any aspect of
the scholarly analysis. I suspect its timing as extremely convenient for to
assuage fundamentalist angst.

>The Turin Shroud was recognized for what it actually is by Church
>authorities at the time it first appeared.
>
>Schliemann's discovery of "Priam's Treasure" was not a hoax - the articles
>were genuine, only the attribution was a mistake - Schliemann was led astray
>by his wish to find what he hoped.  

From what I have read there is strong undercurrent in classical archaeology
working on the notion that elements of the treasure came from various
locations and constructed by Schliemann. He was not led astray.

>Similar thinking was partially
>responsible for the success of the Piltdown Man hoax
>
>The Piltdown Man hoax was not discovered earlier because scientist were
>denied access to the actual "finds" and instead had to be content with
>studying reproductions.  As Stephen Jay Gould has noted, the hoax was
>accepted because it played to the expectations of the times.[..]
>
>In the case of the Tel Dan inscription, since there is no evidence to
>suggest a fraud, it seems to me that is those who refuse to accept its
>genuineness that are being led astray by their presuppositions.

I've already mentioned two analyses on the inscription, one by Garbini
(which is on my website
(http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/histreli.htm) regarding the
philological aspects, the other by Cryer regarding the physical aspects of
the inscription (yet to be published). As I said, I'm in no position to be
able to judge, but then neither are most others who accept the thing. So, I
see that there is evidence to suggest that it may be a fraud and that
people who accept its genuineness have been carried away by their own
presuppositions. Would you construct a future on the hoped for outcome of a
legal trial or wait for the decision?

Presuming it is a genuine find, scholars can fight over its significance,
for there has been a lot of theoretical energy put into it already by those
who believe it is a genuine artifact and have come up with conflicting
analyses.


Cheers,


Ian