Bonus 40 - Jehoash Inscription

Jehoash Inscription

The Jehoash Inscription is an unprovinanced (not found in its original location) tablet that is reported to have surfaced in a Muslim cemetery or construction site near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem in 2003. The inscription records the renovation done to the First Temple under King Jehoash (ruled ca. 9th cent. BC). The Temple repairs are also mentioned in the Bible (2 Kgs 12:1-16 and 2 Chron 24:4-14). It’s is considered to be the only Judahite royal inscription in existence. According to Cohen, the translation of the 16 lines of the ancient Hebrew is as follows:

‘‘[I am Yeho’ash, son of A]hazyahu, k[ing over Ju]dah, and I executed the re[pai]rs. When men’s hearts became replete with generosity in the (densely populated) land and in the (sparsely populated) steppe, and in all the cities of Judah, to donate money for the sacred contributions abundantly, in order to purchase quarry stone and juniper wood and Edomite copper/ copper from (the city of) ‘Adam, (and) in order to perform the work faithfully (¼without corruption), - (then) I renovated the breach(es) of the Temple and of the surrounding walls, and the storied structure, and the mesh-work, and the winding stairs, and the recesses, and the doors. May (this inscribed stone) become this day a witness that the work has succeeded (and) may God (thus) ordain His people with a blessing.’’1.  

Rosenfeld et al., report the debate over the possibility that the Jehoash Inscription is a forgery.

The JI tablet is said to have been found near the southeastern corner of the wall of the Temple Mount complex, where it was used as a secondary building stone in a tomb. It was found in the Jerusalem antiquities market and it is now under the custody of the Israel Antiquity Authority (IAA). The authenticity of the Jehoash Inscription has been a fiercely debated topic over the past few years. Epigraphic and philologic analyses of the tablet are inconclusive as to its authenticity. Cohen contended that if a forgery, it is a brilliant one, near genius.2.   Freedman advised not to rush to judgment; the Jehoash inscription may be authentic.3.   Sasson noted that the text of this inscription is not a forgery.4.   If it is a forgery, then a combination of some incredible factors must have operated in producing it. Cross, however, maintained that the inscription is a poor forgery.5.   This dispute should not come as a surprise, since no Hebrew royal inscription from the First Temple Period was ever found which could serve for typological comparison. Ilani et al.6.   and Rosenfeld et al.7.   concluded that it may be authentic based on chemical and petro- graphic analyses. Following their report on the patina to the IAA, Goren et al. claimed that the inscription on the JI tablet was a forgery.8.   New evidence based on microcolonial fungi (MCF) as producers of a black and orange-brown patina, strengthens the view that the inscription was not recently engraved. 9.  

While the debate continues one should be cautious about placing too much reliance on this artifact for support of biblical reliability. While unprovinanced artifacts need to be examined carefully, many such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided valuable help in understanding the Biblical text.

Footnotes

• 1. Chaim Cohen, “Yeho’ash Inscription – a new addition: philological aspects.” Abstract. In The 14th World Congress of Jewish Studies. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. 
• 2. Chaim Cohen, “Biblical Hebrew philology in the light of research on the new Yeho’ash Royal Building Inscription.” In: Lubetski, M. (Ed.), New Seals and Inscriptions: Hebrew, Idumean, and Cuneiform. (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007), 222–86.
• 3. David N. Freedman, “Don’t rush to judgment: Jehoash inscription may be authentic.” Biblical Archaeology Review 30 (2004): 48–51.
• 4. Sasson, Victor. “Philological and textural observations on the controversial Jehoash inscription.” Ugarit-Forschungen 35 (2004): 573–87
• 5. Frank M. Cross, “Notes on the forged plaque recording repairs to the temple.” Israel Exploration Journal 53 (2003), 119–122.
• 6. Shimon Ilani, Rosenfeld, Amnon, 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.
• 7. Amnon Rosenfeld,  Ilani, Shimon, Kronfeld, Yoel, Feldman, Howard R., Telem, E. M., 2005. “Archaeometric analysis of the ‘‘Jehoash Inscription’’ stone describing the renovation of the First Temple of Jerusalem,” In Geological Society of America Annual Meeting 37, Salt Lake City (2005): 278.
• 8. Yuval Goren,  Avner Ayalon, Miryam Bar-Matthews and Bettina Schilman, “Authenticity examination of Jehoash inscription.” Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 31 (2004): 3–16.
• 9. Amnon Rosenfeld et al., “Archaeometric Analysis of the ‘Jehoash Inscription,’” Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008): 2966–72.

For Further Study

• Amnon Rosenfeld, Howard R. Feldman, Yoel Kronfeld, Wolfgang E. Krumbein. “The Jehoash Inscription Tablet-After the Verdict.” 1-30.
• Cohen, Chaim. “Yeho’ash Inscription – a new addition: philological aspects.” Abstract. In The 14th World Congress of Jewish Studies. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005.
• Cohen, Chaim. “Biblical Hebrew philology in the light of research on the new Yeho’ash Royal Building Inscription.” In: Lubetski, M. (Ed.), New Seals and Inscriptions: Hebrew, Idumean, and Cuneiform, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007), 222–86.
• Cross, Frank M. “Notes on the forged plaque recording repairs to the temple.” Israel Exploration Journal 53 (2003), 119–122.
• Freedman, David N. “Don’t rush to judgment: Jehoash inscription may be authentic.” Biblical Archaeology Review 30 (2004): 48–51.
• Goren, Yuval. “The Jerusalem Syndrome in Biblical Archaeology,” Society of Biblical Literature. Forum, n.p. ( March 2005). 
• Goren, Yuval.  “Final reports on the Yehoash Inscription and James Ossuary from the Israeli Antiquities Authority,” The Bible and Interpretation (2005).
• Goren, Yuval, Avner Ayalon, Miryam Bar-Matthews and Bettina Schilman, “Authenticity examination of Jehoash inscription.” Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 31 (2004): 3–16.
• Ilani, Shimon, Rosenfeld, Amnon, 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.
• Rosenfeld Amnon, and, Howard R. Feldman. “Archaeometric overview of the  Jehoash Inscription and James Ossuary.” Jerusalem Forgery Conference, Special Report Biblical Archaeology Society ( January, 16 - 18, 2007):  39 – 40.
• Rosenfeld, Amnon, Ilani, Shimon, Feldman, Howard R., Kronfeld, Yoel and Krumbein, W.E., “Implications of the  “Forgery Trial” Verdict on the Authenticity of the James Ossuary.” The Bible and Interpretation (2001).  
• Rosenfeld, Amnon, Ilani, Shimon, Feldman, Howard R., Krumbein, W. E., and Kronfeld, Yoel. “Archaeometric Evidence for the Authenticity of the JITablet”, updated and expanded  version,  Antiguo Oriente 7 (2009 ): 57 – 73;  original version,  The Bible and Interpretation, 2008.
• Rosenfeld, Amnon, Ilani, Shimon, Kronfeld, Yoel, Feldman, Howard R., Telem, E. M., 2005. “Archaeometric analysis of the ‘‘Jehoash Inscription’’ stone describing the renovation of the First Temple of Jerusalem,” In Geological Society of America Annual Meeting 37, Salt Lake City (2005): 278.
• Rosenfeld, Amnon, Shimon Ilani, H. R. Feldman, W. E. Krumbein, and J. Kronfeld. “Archaeometric Analysis of the ‘Jehoash Inscription.’” Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008): 2966–72
• Sasson, Victor. “Philological and textural observations on the controversial Jehoash inscription.” Ugarit-Forschungen 35 (2004): 573–587.
• Sasson, Victor. King Jehoash and the Mystery of the Temple of Solomon Inscription. Bloomington, Ind.: iUniverse, 2008.