Lecture on the Newark Holy Stones

NEW WORLD HEBREW FORGERY (OR SOMETHING) WATCH: Newark Holy Stones remain significant despite hoax. Presentation at Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum details history and place of fake artifacts today (LEONARD L. HAYHURST, Coshocton Tribune).

Museum Director Jennifer Bush and archeologist Brad Lepper of the Ohio History Connection recently gave a presentation on the stones and what we can learn from their history at the museum. Bush and Lepper, along with Reba Kocher, had the article "The Newark Holy Stones: Touchstones for the Truth" published in the Public Historian earlier this year.

There's a video of part of the presentation and a summary of all of it

I have been following the story of the nineteenth-century Newark Stones hoax for a long time. For my brief summary of what we know and can reasonably infer about the stones, see here. And follow the links from there for more.

The links to past media seem to have rotted, but you can find good photos of the objects at the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum website.

Visit PaleoJudaica daily for the latest news on ancient Judaism and the biblical world.

Hixton on no-longer-first-century Mark

THE ETC BLOG: Hixson on Lesson from P137 or “First-Century Mark” (Peter Gurry).

Dr. Hixton's essay on the no-longer-first-century Mark manuscript draws some valuable conclusions from the whole sad affair and is well worth reading.

I underline his first lesson: "If something sounds too good to be true, it might be. Assume it is until there is an informed scholarly consensus." I have made the same point: "... if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't." I call this the "lottery rule." If someone reports a new discovery that is the scholarly equivalent to our having won the lottery, we should assume it is fake news unless we have strong evidence otherwise.

I have applied his second lesson as well: "Overhyped expectations can result in undervaluing the actual evidence." A genuinely important discovery can be overshadowed by overdone claims, especially of some direct biblical connection, to try to get media attention. This is the principle of contrast at work. The discovery itself could be quite interesting on its own terms, but the dubious overhyped claim makes it seem less so. An example is the supposed house of Jesus in Nazareth.

Hixton's third lesson: "Don’t cite unpublished research," parallels the point I often make that the scholarly discussion of a supposed discovery does not even begin until it passes the (rather low) bar of peer-review publication. I raised the issue recently, for example, regarding the Newark Stones and some new (reportedly) late-antique Mandean amulets. I raised it regarding the ink of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife papyrus, which papyrus has since been debunked as a modern hoax. And I have raised it repeatedly about the Jordanian Lead Codices, on which, to my knowledge, no peer-reviewed publication has yet appeared nearly eleven years after the announcement of their discovery. I have collected additional thoughts on peer review here.

As for Hixton's final lesson, "Show integrity at earliest possible opportunity," when you make an error (you will!), make sure to correct it as soon as you become aware of it. Cf., in the last several years, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

For many PaleoJudaica posts on the no-longer-first-century Mark fragment saga, see here, here, here, here, and here, and follow all the links.

Visit PaleoJudaica daily for the latest news on ancient Judaism and the biblical world.

The Newark holy stones are on display

NEW WORLD HEBREW FORGERY (OR SOMETHING) WATCH: Bush: The battle over the Newark holy stones' story (Jennifer Bush, The Newark Advocate via MSN).

For more than 160 years people have disagreed over whether the Newark Holy Stones are authentic. These carved stones engraved with Hebrew letters were found in and near the Newark Earthworks in the 1860s. Two of the Stones are in the collections of the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum in Coshocton.

[...]

No specialist argues today that the Newark Stones are genuine ancient artifacts. They may have been created in the mid-nineteenth century as emancipationist propaganda aimed at preventing a civil war. It has also been suggested that they are stolen European medieval Jewish artifacts. To my knowledge, no peer-reviewed study has been published defending either hypothesis.

In any case, they are remarkable objects. They are on display at present at the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum in Coshocton, Ohio. If you happen to be in the vicinity, do go and have a look.

For PaleoJudaica posts that go over this ground in much more detail, start here and follow the links.

Visit PaleoJudaica daily for the latest news on ancient Judaism and the biblical world.

The Newark holy stones in the news

NEW WORLD HEBREW FORGERY (OR SOMETHING) WATCH: Lepper: The Newark Earthworks and The Holy Stones (Brian Lepper MSN News).

The curious Newark holy stones are Hebrew inscribed objects found in association with ancient Native American earthworks in the vicinity of Newark, New Jersey, in 1860. For some years Dr. Lepper, curator of archaeology for the Ohio History Connection, and his colleague Jeff Gill been promoting the theory that the stones were forged as emancipationist propaganda to try to prevent a civil war. Obviously, the plan did not succeed.

I have discussed the Newark Stones in more detail here. You can follow the links from there for more posts on them. It looks like all the previous article I had linked to have rotted, so this is a recent article in Dr. Lepper's own words. As far as I know, his theory, which in itself sounds plausible, has not been published in a peer-review journal.

No specialist thinks today that the Newark holy stones are ancient artifacts. But Rochelle Altman once argued that they are stolen medieval Jewish relics. (The link is gone.) Again, I am not aware of any formal publications of this idea.

Whatever kind of thing they are, they look pretty cool. Someone did put a lot of work into them. The current article has some photos. Lepper and Gill have a more detailed popular article posted on Dr. Lepper's Academia.edu page. It has some close-up photos as well.

Visit PaleoJudaica daily for the latest news on ancient Judaism and the biblical world.

The Newark Stones as emancipationist forgeries?

NOT ANCIENT NEW WORLD ARTIFACTS, ANYWAY: Archaeology: Newark ‘Holy Stones’ are 19th century fake news (Brad Lepper, The Columbus Dispatch). The Newark stones are Hebrew-inscribed objects found in found near Newark, Ohio, in 1860. They have been argued to be ancient, but no one remains convinced today.

Dr. Lepper and his colleague Jeff Gill at the Ohio History Connection are making the case that the objects were forged in the nineteenth century by the Rev. Charles McIlvaine. They were intended as a compelling argument for the abolition of slavery in the U.S.A. The case sounds indirect to me, but Dr. Lepper really doesn't have the space to make it fully in this brief essay. I look forward to hearing more.

Everyone agrees that the Newark Stones are not genuine ancient New World artifacts, although Rochelle Altman argued some years ago in a Bible and Intepretation essay that they are medieval Jewish artifacts that were placed secondarily in the locations where they were found. But if this theory was every published in a peer-review journal, I haven't seen it.

Some past posts on the Newark Stones and other dubious New World Hebrew inscriptions are here, here, here, here, and here. Dr. Lepper and his theory come up in a couple of these posts.

The Los Lunas inscription, once more

NEW WORLD FORGERY WATCH: Oldest Paleo-Hebrew Ten Commandments Found Where?! (Tsivya Fox, Breaking Israel News).

It may surprise many people to learn that the oldest known Ten Commandments written in Hebrew on stone may not be in the Holy Land, but in America. The controversial carving resides west of Los Lunas, New Mexico at the bottom of a place called Hidden Mountain. Named the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone, it is also known as “Mystery Stone”, “Phoenician Inscription Rock”, or “Mystery Rock”. It contains the text of the Ten Commandments written in ancient Paleo-Hebrew.

[...]

Here we go again. The Los Lunas inscription forgery shows up in the media every few years. I replied to pretty much the same set of claims a few years ago here. If I may quote myself:

The Harvard Professor—Robert Pfeiffer—died in 1958 and it is not clear from the coverage here that he said "yes" in the sense of thinking that it was possible that it was an ancient inscription.

This [earlier] article gathers together some entertaining anecdotes and occasionally some interesting information, but ultimately it tries to find a "debate" where there is none. No epigrapher of ancient Hebrew is willing today to defend the authenticity of the inscription. (James Tabor tried once in a popular article, but this article reports that he has changed his mind.)

Further detail there. And as always, let me reiterate this:

As usual, if a trained specialist wants to publish an article in a peer-review journal which argues that the stone is really an ancient inscription that shows the presence of pre-Columbian Jews in New Mexico, I would be willing to listen to the argument. But in the meantime, it's a fake.

Follow that link for additional past posts on the subject. In particular, in this post I mentioned that the late Cyrus Gordon argued that the inscription was a genuine late antique (Samaritan) artifact. The 1995 article was in the Japanese (English-language) journal Orient and you can download it for free here. You can read his discussion of the New World inscriptions, including the Los Lunas inscription, in the first several pages. No real case is made. By real case I mean a serious, detailed paleographic and orthographic analysis. If someone wants to do that and to get it published in a peer-review journal, there would be a case to consider. There isn't now. My past posts on the Los Lunas inscription also deal with the Bat Creek stone inscription and the Newark Stones.

News on the Newark Stones

THE NEWARK STONES are back in the press, as a salutary reminder that supposedly ancient Hebrew inscriptions of dubious origin are nothing new.

Newark archaeologist lectures about holy stones

3:27 AM, Mar. 28, 2011 |

JAN MYERS, Newark Advocate

COSHOCTON -- More than 30 people attended a lecture about the Newark Holy Stones at the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum.

The speaker was Dr. Bradley T. Lepper, a Newark resident who is curator of archaeology at the Ohio Historical Society.

[...]

This has been such a fascinating search," Lepper said. "I've researched several of the players involved in the discovery and those who authenticated them at the time to try to determine who might have been behind this. We have to immerse ourselves in the time period of 1860 and understand what was going on with science, religion and politics to see why this hoax would have been done.

"I believe these stones are scientific forgeries designed to answer the polygenist arguments (claiming there were distinct racial types) which were popular justifications for slavery. The stones represent an attempt to encompass the prehistory of the New World within the biblical history of the Old. I also believe Rev. McCarty was instrumental in this forgery and that David Wyrick was just a pawn. It would appear that the Newark Holy Stones were aptly named since they may have been created for a holy purpose -- the freeing of America's slaves."

Patti Malenke, director at the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum, said the Newark Holy Stones are a popular attraction at the museum.

"The Johnson brothers purchased the Holy Stones in the 1870s and later tried to sell them when they learned they may be fakes," she said. "It's a good thing they didn't sell because today the Holy Stones are our 'claim to fame.' We have bus loads of people who come here from all over to see them, and we've shipped replicas of the stones throughout the world."

The article includes a (bad) picture of the artifacts. Rochelle Altman has argued that the Newark stones are not so much forged as misunderstood, but others seem to think they are straightforward forgeries. More on them here (noting a mention by Glenn Beck that also drummed up some business for Newark) and follow the links.

(HT Dorothy Lobel King.)

New World Hebrew forgeries in the news

NEW WORLD HEBREW FORGERIES have been getting some unfortunate media attention lately. For some reason the Los Lunas "Mystery Stone" forgery in New Mexico is given gullible positive coverage by Digital Journal. Also, a visit to the stone is chronicled much more sensibly in Mama Dragon, in which post the burning bush is repeatedly addressed as "dude."*

Note also Glenn Beck's recent foray back into Hebrew studies with a segment on the Bat Creek Stone. The Bat Creek stone inscription was also debunked back in 1993 in the July/August issue of Biblical Archaeology Review by P. Kyle McCarter, supporting earlier conclusions by Frank Moore Cross. (Not online. Sorry.) Cross and McCarter are two of the most distinguished living Northwest Semitic epigraphers. (Full disclosure: Cross supervised my doctoral dissertation.) Both the paleography (letter shapes) of the letters that look like Hebrew and the content (the apparent geographical name Yehud) do not work for Second Temple Hebrew (or, in combination, any other kind).

Beck also mentioned the Newark Stones, which are clearly not actually Second Temple Hebrew inscriptions, although it has been argued that they are medieval Jewish relics that were salted into the digs where they were discovered. At least the residents of Newark were pleased with Beck's mention of the stones:

NEWARK -- The day after the Newark Earthworks were mentioned by television and radio host Glenn Beck on FOX News, there was an increase in visitors at the Great Circle.

"Our phones are ringing off the hook," said Susan Fryer, executive director of the Greater Licking County Convention and Visitors Bureau, which is housed at the Great Circle in Newark.

"So far we've had about 34 visitors today, and about one-third of those are here because they saw it on Glenn Beck," Fryer said mid-afternoon Thursday.

Many of the visitors, Fryer said, were from Ohio and had thought about visiting but never did until they saw the program.

[...]

*Via James McGrath on FB.

THE NEWARK STONES are in the news:

'Holy Stones' prompt investigation

By L.B. WHYDE • Newark Advocate • May 12, 2008

NEWARK - Trying to preserve the Union during a tumultuous time in history, several prominent local men conspired and manufactured artifacts to support an emerging anti-slavery theory.

Known as Newark's Holy Stones, the artifacts later were proven to be fake. But two local men have done extensive research to discover the reasons behind the conspiracy.

Brad Lepper, an Ohio Historical Society archaeologist, first learned of the pair of hand-carved stones found in the Newark area in 1860 while he was a graduate student working at the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum in Coshocton, where the original stones are housed.

When he became the curator at the Newark Earthworks in 1988, Lepper had to learn about the fake artifacts because of the number of questions about them. But when Jeff Gill, a history enthusiast and supply preacher, moved into the area in 1989, the duo continued the research to discover the men and reasons behind the conspiracy.

"Looking into the background of what was going on at that time period, it shows us how Licking County played a role in the movement for freedom of rights," Gill said. "They (the conspirators) did it for the right reasons, but I deplore their methods."

[...]

The first stone unearthed had several flaws, including being found too close to the surface and the fact the writing was modern Hebrew for that time. Five months later, another stone, called the Decalogue Stone, was discovered much deeper, in the area of Jacksontown.

Again Wyrick found the stone, which seemed to answer all the flaws of the first stone. The stones were claimed to be conclusive proof that all men descended from Adam and Eve. After both stones later were found to be fake, and his premature death, the blame was put on Wyrick by former Newark Mayor Israel Dille.

[...]

A few years ago Rochelle Altman published an essay at the Bible and Interpretation website in which she argued that the stones were genuine Jewish artifacts from the late Middle Ages.

ROCHELLE ALTMAN, co-coordinator of the Ioudaios-L discussion list, argues that artifacts found near Newark, Ohio, in 1860 are neither proof of Israelites in Pre-Columbian America or modern forgeries: they're medieval relics from Europe, stolen from a murdered European settler in America. Most of the essay deals with paleographic matters I'm not an expert on, and I've only read it over once pretty quickly. I will say that I'm very skeptical about the the Tetrateuch being transcribed as early as the 10th century B.C.E. and about the efforts to use these relics to illuminate the biblical period. But you can read the piece on the Bible and Interpretation News website and decide for yourself:

�First, �recognize that it's a penny�: Report on the "Newark" Ritual Artifacts

She sums up her arguments here:

�� The Newark Ritual artifacts date to the Late Medieval period, as is made clear from stylistic features on the bas-relief sculpture on one of the artifacts and the Late Medieval Hebrew base-script used for the consolidated grid font that appears in the inscriptions on two of the artifacts. The artifacts are authentic, if not what they were thought to be in the 19th century, and, unfortunately, even today.60

��� Claims of modern forgery based on the "peculiar" script, or "spelling" errors (of which there is precisely one after 1500 years or more of copying the text),61 or the pose of the figure on the bas-relief are equally erroneous and have no basis in actuality. The fact that black limestone with crinoid stems can be found in Ohio also has been claimed as evidence that the artifacts are forgeries. Black limestone containing crinoid stems, however, is available throughout the world. The material may be found, for example, in Belgium, England, France, Hungary and Spain. It may also be found in Idaho and the Dakotas as well as in Mercer and Muskingum Counties Ohio.62 The artifacts pass all visual forensic analysis tests. They also pass the materials examination as far as the availability of the material at the probable site(s) of manufacture. That black limestone can also be found in Ohio is irrelevant.

��� Archaeology as a soundly based field only came into being in the 1880's. That in the 1860's claims that the artifacts were forgeries, although the evidence at the site and expert opinion was against this, can be excused. Claims today that these artifacts are forgeries and not "old" enough for where they were found are unacceptable; such claims ignore both basic archaeological standards and the evidence. We can never know whether the artifacts were deposited during the "pirate treasure hunt" phase or sometime shortly after 1832 when the workmen removed 144,000 cartloads of stones from all the stacks at the site. There is, though, little doubt: this set of ritual artifacts was deposited at the two sites during the early part of the nineteenth century. As Dr. Fischel pointed out in 1861, these artifacts are medieval and European and had been stolen from a European settler.

��� The "Newark" Ritual artifacts are neither forgeries nor relics of �Ancient America.� They are, however, very important concrete evidence of Ancient and Medieval Israelite practices. The ancient graphs included in the consolidated script on these phylacteries are also our first small pieces of concrete evidence that a factual basis underlies Exodus 32:15. The shape of the tablet held by Moses as well as the condensed "decalogue" inscribed on the hand phylactery is concrete evidence of the types of authoritative and theological disputes that divided the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. In addition, these artifacts also give us some hints as to the continuation of Jewish traditions among the peoples displaced after the Northern Kingdom was destroyed. This particular penny is far too important to leave in the obscurity of a wrangle between two extremist sides, both of whom ignore the evidence.

��� If an American penny finds its way onto the Acropolis in Athens or the Colosseum in Rome, we dismiss the question of how it got there as too obvious to be worth asking. This set of late-medieval ritual artifacts found their way to these sites in the United States because they were brought there, as so many family heirlooms were, by a settler from Europe searching for a new home in the new world.

UPDATE (23 January): I have reposted the quotation, since it has been re-edited.