Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Saturday 18 January 2003 02:19, Jonathan D. Safren wrote:
> There is a sceptical article about the Jehoash Tablet in Ha'aretz, Friday,
> Jan.q8, 2003. at:
> http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=252975&contrassI
>D=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
>
> Though non-prodessional, the article weighs the various pros and cons, but
> its chief value, in my opinion, os that it decries the lack of
> sollaboration between the various scholarly disciplines involved.

I have to agree with him about the lack of cooperation; however, I tend to 
disagree with him that we can't apply scientific examination.  It seems to me 
that the geologists and chemists have done just that and confirmed that the 
tablet is old.  That being the case, and since everybody agrees that we have 
a severe lack of inscriptions by which to compare things like writing style, 
grammar and vocabulary, it's not enough for an epigrapher to say "this is a 
modern idiom" or "they didn't carve the letters this way back then" without a 
viable explanation as to how a forger was able to fake a 2300-year-old patina 
as well.  Perhaps there's a necessary sequence of investigation here: first 
determine the age of the tablet itself and the accretions on its surface, 
then try to interpret the inscription in light of those results.  In that 
event, the epigraphic conclusions that have been put forth are perhaps a 
little premature?  I don't know, but for me, when the age of the tablet and 
its patina, as determined by scientific tests that seem to be reliable, 
clashes with epigraphic analysis, which everyone agrees is an inexact science 
because of the lack of comparison materials, I would lean a little more 
heavily on the former than on the latter.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
One psychiatrist to the other when they meet in an elevator:
"You're fine, how am I?"