The Jehoash Inscription

[Chris Watts]

I thought not to complicate an ongoing thread, so I made a new one, and if anyone is interested here is quite a compelling set of arguments both for and against. It is not just the hebrew, there are many other factors to consider when evaluating this sort of thing. I immediately took issue with Karl's remark that he made his decision based purely on the hebrew, but as this site proves quite conclusively, the hebrew itself is no indication of it not being authentic.

I decided to pull out just this little snippet :

Despite this general skepticism, other eminent scholars caution against haste in rejecting the Jehoash Inscription as a fake. Professor D. N. Freedman makes the methodological point that we know too little about ninth-century Hebrew to say decisively which spellings, lexica, and other expressions in the inscription deviate from genuine ninth-century Hebrew. The Bible provides an incomplete exemplar of early Hebrew vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and we possess no other royal inscription from monarchical Israel and Judah. Moreover, authenticated non-royal Hebrew inscriptions often present linguistic features unknown from biblical language or differing from biblical usage, and the anomalies force us to revise our understanding of the language. We cannot simply reject out of hand any linguistic pattern not known already from the limited biblical corpus. In short, if orthographic, lexical, and syntactical peculiarities occur in genuine and fake inscriptions alike, those in the Jehoash Inscription are not ipso facto proof of forgery.

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... ll_Jehoash

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

I have often considered just this concept and lend it my complete confidence:

The Bible provides an incomplete exemplar of early Hebrew vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and we possess no other royal inscription from monarchical Israel and Judah. Moreover, authenticated non-royal Hebrew inscriptions often present linguistic features unknown from biblical language or differing from biblical usage, and the anomalies force us to revise our understanding of the language.

[kwrandolph]

Just as I expected. Both of you have admitted that neither of you knows enough Biblical Hebrew to evaluate that inscription whether or not it is written in good Biblical Hebrew. Both of you turned to “experts”.

One of the problems with “experts” is that many of them believe that at least parts of Tanakh were written as late as second century BC, then compare the language used with other second century BC writings. As a result, they often think Biblical era writings as inferior to other second century BC writings. Others still consider the Masoretic “corrections” as indicating that Tanakh was either poorly written and/or there were many mistakes in its transmission. Almost all, if not all, “experts”, have their understanding of Biblical Hebrew contaminated by studying cognate languages, such as Arabic, first century Hebrew, modern Israeli Hebrew, Aramaic, and so forth. Bottom line, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, do I trust the “experts”, or my own two lying eyes?

Then one of you thinks I can’t get a feel for the language if I don’t contaminate my feel for Biblical Hebrew with studying cognate languages. I think that’s hilarious.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

You are delusional, Karl.

[Chris Watts]

Just as I expected. Both of you have admitted that neither of you knows enough Biblical Hebrew to evaluate that inscription whether or not it is written in good Biblical Hebrew. Both of you turned to “experts”.
Karl W. Randolph.

You just shot yourself in the foot by this remark. Observation: This means that you are better qualified to make a decision about the hebrew than those hebraists who decided that it was not a forgery, which implies that your knowledge is better than theirs? they were less qualified to comment than you because they simply asserted that the hebrew was genuine?. Having said this, in the Journal of Archaeological Science Volume 35, Issue 11 November 2008, Pages 2966-2972, entitled 'Archeometric Analysis of the Tablet', now there's a mouthful, these experts are also stupid? You will find this here : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.06.019, at least the geological aspect seems to be proof of authenticity.

Unfortunately for your hasty conclusion the Geology is problematic for those who believe it is a forgery. Here is some more:

The geologists’ conclusion is clear: “Our analysis strongly supports the authenticity of the Jehoash tablet and its inscription. All evidence indicates that the production of the tablet and the carving of its inscription occurred at essentially the same time.

You will find that here:https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... -disagree/

Karl, it is utterly impossible to claim a forgery of this kind on the basis of hebrew alone, that is the final verdict here, one needs other types of analysis. What if a tablet was found written in perfect hebrew, the hebrew that YOU would expect to read. Would you then claim it authentic? Then the geological team gets to work on it and it turns out to be a forgery.

Karl YOU REALLY do need to read these documents, although they are from the very experts you detest, the simple fact is this: YOU may well be wrong, now how does that brighten up your day? I am not saying you are wrong but that the manner in which you assert this is completely fruitcake.

If you really want to get your teeth into this whole saga then here is the complete court transcript with the most recent and final verdict of the court along with a myriad of 'EXPERTS" that I hope you might respect. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/sites/b ... hoash2.pdf

The long and short of your comment is this: If it takes 7 years and many many 'EXPERTS" from around Israel and Europe to analyse this stone, how come you can do it in 5 minutes by simply reading the hebrew?

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

You are delusional, Karl.

LOL! Hahahahaha!

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Just as I expected. Both of you have admitted that neither of you knows enough Biblical Hebrew to evaluate that inscription whether or not it is written in good Biblical Hebrew. Both of you turned to “experts”.
Karl W. Randolph.

You just shot yourself in the foot by this remark. Observation: This means that you are better qualified to make a decision about the hebrew than those hebraists who decided that it was not a forgery, which implies that your knowledge is better than theirs? they were less qualified to comment than you because they simply asserted that the hebrew was genuine?.

You need to ask, what is the basis for their claimed “expertise”? Have they read Tanakh through cover to cover, even once?

Before we were kicked off our old site, I interacted with an “expert” who claimed to have read Tanakh twice. He made several mistakes concerning Biblical Hebrew language, to which I merely pointed to verses that contradicted his claims. (Interesting, I noticed that those interactions have been removed from the archived site.) I finally wrote that the reason he made so many mistakes was because he didn’t know Tanakh. He hasn’t been back since.

So now, before I trust any “expert”, I want to see his credentials. A mere PhD ain’t gonna cut it.

Having said this, in the Journal of Archaeological Science Volume 35, Issue 11 November 2008, Pages 2966-2972, entitled 'Archeometric Analysis of the Tablet', now there's a mouthful, these experts are also stupid? You will find this here : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.06.019, at least the geological aspect seems to be proof of authenticity.

A clever forger can forge also the patina. That’s just a chemical process.

Unfortunately for your hasty conclusion the Geology is problematic for those who believe it is a forgery. Here is some more:

The geologists’ conclusion is clear: “Our analysis strongly supports the authenticity of the Jehoash tablet and its inscription. All evidence indicates that the production of the tablet and the carving of its inscription occurred at essentially the same time.

You will find that here:https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... -disagree/

I read that article. The philologists (linguists) almost to a man say that it is a forgery. I am a linguist (in this context a philologist). So naturally I side with the philologists.

Karl, it is utterly impossible to claim a forgery of this kind on the basis of hebrew alone, that is the final verdict here, one needs other types of analysis. What if a tablet was found written in perfect hebrew, the hebrew that YOU would expect to read. Would you then claim it authentic? Then the geological team gets to work on it and it turns out to be a forgery.

Karl YOU REALLY do need to read these documents, although they are from the very experts you detest, the simple fact is this: YOU may well be wrong, now how does that brighten up your day?

There are plenty of times that I am wrong. But I am careful, trying to be wrong as seldom as possible.

I am not saying you are wrong but that the manner in which you assert this is completely fruitcake.

Oh, do you say that the philologists mentioned in the BAR article are also fruitcake?

If you really want to get your teeth into this whole saga then here is the complete court transcript with the most recent and final verdict of the court along with a myriad of 'EXPERTS" that I hope you might respect. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/sites/b ... hoash2.pdf

The long and short of your comment is this: If it takes 7 years and many many 'EXPERTS" from around Israel and Europe to analyse this stone, how come you can do it in 5 minutes by simply reading the hebrew?

Because I noticed right away that the Hebrew language used was weird. But the phrase בארץ ובממדבר pretty much clinched it for me, as even the idea that מדבר being considered separate from ארץ is something I don’t find in Tanakh.

Some of the philologists mentioned לבדוק in the final line of the inscription. I missed that one because of 2 Chronicles 34:10.

Chris watts

As you see, there are experts who agree with me. But we came to our conclusions independent of each other. By your actions, you admit that both of you know so little that you cannot come to a conclusion on your own.

Karl W. Randolph.