The Enigmatic Inscription: Real or Forged?
A rare artifact slipped and broke in half, revealing its secrets. Experts debate its authenticity but agree it is at least a century old.
(Photo: shutterstock)In this week's Torah portion, Bechukotai, the concept of valuation is discussed—when a person pledges the value of another to the Temple, how much should they pay?
In 2001, antiquities dealer Oded Golan revealed an inscription allegedly from King Yehoash, describing his restoration efforts, including bringing valuation money to the Temple treasury.
The first study of this inscription was conducted by geologists Shimon Ilani and Amnon Rosenfeld from the Geological Survey of Israel, along with other experts, who declared it authentic and not a forgery (later tests at the Israel Museum labs were inconclusive regarding the inscription's age). However, Israel Antiquities Authority experts claimed it was a fake. For seven years, Golan faced forgery charges, with geologists and linguists testifying. In 2012, Judge Aharon Farkash ruled there was no proof of forgery: "The inscription cannot be determined to be fake, not even based on language," yet another ruling stated Golan could not reclaim the inscription since its authenticity was not proven, and antiquities belong to the state...
The Antiquities Authority leaned on linguist Avigdor Horowitz’s opinion. Horowitz honestly wrote: "If the inscription is genuine, it could challenge several century-old assumptions about biblical study regarding the complexity of biblical literature and the dating of its layers embedded in the Bible." Indeed, a tough problem... confirming the Bible too much. What to do? Horowitz wrote: "If other tests seem to confirm the inscription’s authenticity, they should be doubted, suggesting the forger outsmarted them and found a way to bypass them. Specifically, the geological examination, the only one seemingly confirming the inscription." A predetermined bias that even if tests confirm the inscription, it must be a forgery because it validates the Bible...
Eli Eshed reviews the case from a legal standpoint and shows that despite popular opinions on forgery, the legal facts that led the court to reject forgery claims are more significant: a conspiracy of this scale would require numerous accomplices, involving six to ten experts in different fields. An extensive, rigorous investigation found no hint of such a conspiracy. It is clear to all involved that Golan is not a multidisciplinary genius capable of such a forgery. Court testimonies from 138 witnesses spanned over 12,000 pages. There were 400 exhibits before the judges. In 445 pages of the judgment, if there had been such a forgery conspiracy, it could have been exposed, like any other large-scale crime committed in the state, with the sole suspect before us.
Geologists examining the stone found microscopic gold bubbles within its coating. According to them, these bubbles originated from the gold coating of the Temple walls, melted during its destruction, scattered in a way that could not be artificial. No answer has been given to this finding. A stone and engraving expert who examined the tablet stated firmly that it's impossible to engrave about 200 letters and symbols on hard stone with a visible ancient crack without breaking the tablet or interrupting the engraving's continuity on both sides of the crack.
When the police seized the rare item, a slip caused it to break in two. This revealed a crust in the inscription, and within the letters’ grooves, formed by microorganisms, which experts believe must be at least a hundred years old. Prof. Goren, who served as a prosecution witness, admitted in court to finding ancient material in the inscription and possibly erred in his initial assessment. Other witnesses also changed their stance during the investigation, becoming defense rather than prosecution witnesses.
Eshed quotes numerous researchers, including linguist Chaim Cohen, affirming no genuine counterclaims to the inscription’s authenticity. Cohen writes that in light of the inscription’s text, he discovered significant biblical grammatical insights over roughly three years, "meaning, if it were a forger, he’d have to pre-know all the innovations I discovered after three years of studying this inscription." Cohen admits that even among the most successful researchers he knows, none could have forged such an inscription.
Solid arguments as they may be, fundamental assumptions do not change. The Bible should not be overly verified...
