|
Out of 200 letters analyzed, the overwhelming majority are normal/typical. No ancient inscription with a large quantity of letters like this was perfect--they were written by hand using a chisel or scribing device on a rough surface, so we should expect a few anomalies. When considering whether an ancient inscription is authentic, one could argue that it is so well executed that it must have been copied in modern times based on an ancient prototype; or one could argue that it is so well executed that it must be ancient & authentic. We know for a fact that this ancient alphabetic script varied as it evolved over the centuries; however, at some points in time, individuals may have made mistakes or developed unique penmanship that eventually became normal. So one could adopt a counter position when studying paleography & believe that anomalies indicate forgeries, or anomalies indicate authentic ancient inscriptions--for example, it would seem nonsensical for a forger to market an obvious error after spending so much time doing the necessary research to forge such a large, complicated inscription.
Having said all of that, the inscription on this Joash tablet appears to be a modern forgery. The surface reportedly contained microscopic bits of gold; if it were in the real Temple, it would have been scribed with greater care. An expert scribe would have been employed for such an important project, & that person would have done a better job of laying out the text on a practice surface, then scribed it on the real tablet from right to left properly spaced & sized. Here are some specific spacing anomalies:
- There is no reason for the first Zayin in the first line to be so narrow, & the Shin in the third line to be so wide.
- The letters in the last line appear crowded.
- The letters on the right side of the last line migrate upward to avoid the fracture, which indicates it was scribed by a forger from left to right on the fragmented tablet rather than right to left on a complete tablet in ancient times.
Furthermore, the second Qof (7th line from top, 2nd letter from the right) was obviously written over the fissure, & a fractured tablet would not have been chosen to carry the important message this forgery purports to preserve.
Finally, the microscopic gold contributes to the authentic appearance, but the real Temple would have been more carefully stripped of its gold prior to its destruction by the ancient Babylonians.
|
I don't believe Robert Deutsch is guilty of the charges filed against him by the Israel police for forgery of ostraca & bullae, but his analysis of this Joash tablet (as published by him at listhost.uchicago.edu in January, 2003) seems extremely rushed, & it lacks the accuracy common in his other publications. Why is that? The only remarks he made that I confirmed in the presentation above are the unusual Gimel & anomalous Shins.
His analysis seems uncharacteristic in light of the precision he has demonstrated in other publications. For example, at the beginning of his analysis he emphatically references an "accumulation of styles and chronologically non co-existent characters." Yet he points out no chronologically non-co-existent characters, & even if he were to cite one (such as the Gimel), the angular incline of this one character would be insufficient to demonstrate a forgery. Look at the famous stela of Moabite Mesha; it was a very prominent work certainly done by an experienced scribe, yet many of its letters are at odd angles. For example, look at the nearly upright Gimel on the left side of the 16th line from the top compared to the very inclined Gimel in the 22nd line. Yet no credible scholar has ever suggested that this Moabite Stone was forged or anachronistic!
Another striking remark he made is that some of the letters appear "in many variants some copied from" famous authentic ancient inscriptions. What would he say about the Bet-Resh ligature on one of the HBRN LMLK seals (H4C) matching similar ligatures in the famous Siloam Tunnel inscription? Were the ancient scribes not allowed to copy each other, or were they supposed to deliberately copy each other to appear legitimate? His logic is faulty, & a poor criterion for determining forgeries.
So I strongly disagree with his remark, "All the above ... point toward a very poor forgery." To the contrary, he did not demonstrate that "the letter 'mem' appears in many variants", nor that some of the letters "are cursive and some are lapidary." What would be correct--a carbon copy of a genuine ancient inscription? That's the argument some people use against the James Ossuary--they say the letters match published ossuary incriptions!
|
