Jehoash Inscription - Scholarly Opinion

Scholarly Opinion

Israeli historian Nadav Na'aman, who had theorized that the books of the Kings could be based on public inscriptions, opined that a forger could have used his (Nadav's) theory as a basis for a forgery. Frank Cross of Harvard University noted various errors in spelling and terminology. Yuval Goren of Tel-Aviv University demonstrated how the convincing fake could be produced by abrasive airbrushing. The stone itself remained hidden.

In an article published in 2007, Professor Chaim Cohen of Ben Gurion University wrote, "my long-standing position concerning the authenticity of the YI as follows: In order to remove any possible doubt concerning my position as regards the authenticity of the YI, I wish to emphasize at the outset that I do not know whether or not this inscription is genuine. I do contend, however, that it can not be proven philologically to be a modern-day forgery. I would also add that if nevertheless the YI does turn out to be a forgery, then it is a most brilliant forgery in my opinion."

Victor Sasson responds that "the sandstone inscription need not be the first and original record. If the stone itself cannot scientifically be dated to late ninth century B.C.E., then the text could be a later copy of an original inscription... We do indeed have a reference to a possible renovation or restoration of an inscription. The author of the Tell Fakhriyah Assyrian-Aramaic bilingual inscription, dated to the mid-ninth century B.C.E., speaks of a possible future renovation of his inscription."

Prof. Ronny Reich who played a key role in the widely-publicized case of the antiquities collector accused of fraud, and was one of the founders of the Israel Antiquities Authority stated “Finally, allow me to play devil’s advocate and say that the inscription appears to me to be authentic, because it’s hard for me to believe that a forger ‏(or group of forgers‏) could be so knowledgeable in all aspects of the inscription − that is, the physical, paleographic, linguistic and biblical ones − that they could produce such an object.”

The tablet itself has been condemned by the Israel Museum as forgery and has been removed from its list of references within the museum's public records. While the artifact is itself genuinely traceable from antiquity, the engraving on the stone is heavily questioned and rejected by many Israeli scholars as counterfeit along with the controversial Ivory pomegranate which also came from the same source.