Shanks has posted his current perspective on the forgery trial, including his reason for believing that the prosecution is doomed, and a list of reasons why he thinks the Jehoash Inscription is authentic.
Some of this is old new, but there were some things that I hadn’t heard before.
If you’re into mysteries and tracking down little details, there’s an endless supply of material in biblical studies and archaeology. George Grena latched on to one challenging and controversial issue in archaeology some years ago and he seems determined to become the world’s expert on LMLK seals. (LMLK seals were impressed on royal storejars in the time of Hezekiah. Nearly everything else about their interpretation is controversial.) Grena certainly has enriched the world with the extensive information that he has published online and in his book. That’s a little background to a recent blogpost in which he sheds some light on the little-known biblical town of Kephirah/Chephirah/Kefireh. In the time of Joshua, this was one of four cities of Gibeonites. Most people know of the treachery of the city of Gibeon, but may not recall that there were three other cities in their league, including one I saw every day for the last decade – Kiriath Jearim. Grena’s post begins with some interesting facts about Kephirah before discussing two LMLK seals.
A new study suggests that the scrolls in two of the Dead Sea Scroll caves were deposited fifty years earlier than the rest of the scrolls. You can read a brief report of the study here; the full report was published here:
Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel. “Old Caves and Young Caves: A Statistical Reevaluation of a Qumran Consensus.” Dead Sea Discoveries 14/3 (2007) 313-333.
I am curious which two caves have the older material. Based on geographical location of the caves, I’d expect 1 and 2, or 3 and 11. But I don’t have access to the article as I write.
For some photos of the Dead Sea Scroll caves, see here.
HT: Joe Lauer
Update (2/11): The link above has been corrected. In the process, I found the full article itself, plus an abstract, which answers my question above: 1 and 4. The link that Al gives in the comments below is to an earlier, abbreviated version.
The AP has a nothing-else-to-report-today article about the Israeli excavations in the City of David, focusing particularly on the political aspects. The thesis of the article is summed up in this paragraph:
Israel says it’s reconnecting with its ancient heritage. Palestinians contend the archaeology is a political weapon to undermine their own links to Jerusalem.
The article interviews both sides, though it’s not in-depth enough to satisfy either side. My contribution to the story is a photograph of the City of David that shows the area sometime in the first half of the 20th century, but without most of the buildings.
Some years ago the Israeli government began trying a case of antiquities forgery against five individuals, including Robert Deutsch and Oded Golan. The latter is/was the owner of the James Ossuary and was accused of creating the inscription (or part of it) in order to greatly increase the object’s value. Hershel Shanks now writes on the Biblical Archaeology Society website that the prosecution is winding its case down and may be finished in a few weeks.
Previous posts on this blog related to this include:
Forgery Conference Report (June 2007)
Forgery Trial Update (May 2006)
The Biblical Archaeology Society has a section now that features Mazar’s original announcement, the rejection of this reading by Deutsch and Rainey, and Mazar’s acceptance of the reading of Shlomit.
The site also includes a high-res photograph of the seal. The original posting about this discovery is here. Rainey suggests that this might be Shlomit, the daughter of Zerubbabel, mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:19.
Update (2/5): The Jerusalem Post now covers the story.
