THE JOASH/JEHOASH INSCRIPTION'S AUTHENTICITY is being defended on geological grounds over at the recently revived Bible and Interpretation website:

Archaeometric evidence for the authenticity of the Jehoash Inscription Tablet

A gray, fine-grained arkosic sandstone tablet bearing an inscription in ancient Hebrew from the First Temple Period contains a rich assemblage of particles accumulated in the covering patina. Two types of patina cover the tablet: a thin layer of black to orange iron-oxide-rich layer, a product of micro-biogenic processes, and a light beige patina that contains feldspars, carbonate, iron oxide, subangular quartz grains, carbon ash particles and gold globules (1 to 4 micrometers [1 micrometer = 0.001 millimeter] in diameter). The patina covers the rock surface as well as the engraved lettering grooves and blankets and thus post-dates the incised inscription as well as a crack that runs across the stone and several of the engraved letters. Radiocarbon analyses of the carbon particles in the patina yield a calibrated radiocarbon age of 2340 to 2150 Cal BP. The presence of microcolonial fungi and associated pitting in the patina indicates slow growth over many years. The occurrence of pure gold globules is evidence of a thermal event in close proximity to the tablet (above 1000 degrees Celsius). This study supports the antiquity of the patina, which in turn, strengthens the contention that the inscription is authentic.





By A. Rosenfeld and S. Ilani

Geological Survey of Israel,

H. R. Feldman

The Anna Ruth and Mark Hasten School, A Division of Touro College

Division of Paleontology (Invertebrates), American Museum of Natural History,

W. E. Krumbein

Department of Geomicrobiology, ICBM, Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet,

Oldenburg, Germany

J. Kronfeld

Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences, Tel-Aviv University,

The arguments sound persuasive, but the area is entirely outside my field of expertise and I have no way of evaluating them. The authors look distinguished and some of them have been making related arguments for years. I note that they also have journal publications on the subject, although I know nothing about the journals. More interesting (to me), is the article by C. Cohen, which I have not yet seen but must get a copy of. My skeptical take on the philological aspects of the inscription, posted several years ago, is here and I haven't followed the discussion much since then, but it clearly has continued.