Newsgroup: it.cultura.ebraica
Titolo: Una grande scoperta archeologica? - bis

Ha-aretz di Lunedì riportava la notizia che una stele attribuita a Re
Ioas (9° Secolo AEV) e che alludeva ai lavori di restauro del Tempio di
Gerusalemme nei termini di 2 Re 12, era stata riconosciuta come
autentica dall'Ufficio Prospezioni Geologiche del Ministero Nazionale
delle Infrastrutture.
Gli archeologi hanno ancora dei dubbi, ma se la stele è autentica
davvero, ciò proverebbe senza ombra di dubbio che il Tempio di
Gerusalemme esisteva, e proprio nel luogo identificato dalla tradizione.
Crollerebbe un caposaldo della propaganda arabo-palestinese, per la
quale il Tempio non è mai esistito.
La stele pare sia stata ritrovata dal Waqf che gestisce la Spianata
delle Moschee, ma il Waqf, anziché rendere pubblico il ritrovamento
(troppo scomodo), avrebbe rivenduto il reperto ad un antiquario arabo di
Gerusalemme, che preferisce rimanere anonimo e si fa rappresentare
dall'avvocato (ex-segretario di gabinetto di Barak, ed ora candidato per
i Laburisti) Yitzchaq Herzog.
Vi copio dei link e degli articoli sul ritrovamento:
http://www.jta.org/brknews.asp?id=50711
      Archaeological breakthrough reported
      Some Israeli experts say an inscription on an ancient stone tablet
believed to date to the ninth century BCE is authentic. The tablet bears
an inscription describing repairs to the temple ordered by the King
Jehoash. The description strongly resemble passages in the Second Book
of Kings, the Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported. The fragment, which was
brought to the attention of an antiques collector in Jerusalem, surfaced
in the Temple Mount area as a result of excavation work done there in
recent years by Muslims.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=251230
      Sensation or forgery? Researchers hail dramatic
      First Temple period finding
      By Nadav Shragai
      An inscription attributed to Jehoash, the king of Judea who ruled
in Jerusalem at the end of the ninth century B.C.E., has been
authenticated by experts from the National Infrastructure Ministry's
Geological Survey of Israel following months of examination. The 10-line
fragment, which was apparently found on the Temple Mount, is written in
the first person on a black stone tablet in ancient Phoenician script.
The inscription's description of Temple "house repairs" ordered by King
Jehoash strongly resembles passages in the Second Book of Kings, chapter
12.
      Dr. Gabriel Barkai, a leading Israeli archaeologist from Bar Ilan
University's Land of Israel Studies Department, says that if the
inscription proves to be authentic, the finding is a "sensation" of the
greatest import. It could be, he says, the most significant
archaeological finding yet in Jerusalem and the Land of Israel. It would
be a first-of-its kind piece of physical evidence describing events in a
manner that adheres to the narrative in the Bible.
      According to Dr. Barkai, such a finding, which appears to furnish
proof of the existence of the Temple, must be made available for
examination by scholars, and can not be kept a virtual secret.
      Detailed research findings about the inscription are to be
disclosed in a collection of articles published by the Geology Survey of
Israel, a government research institute. Research studies have been
prepared by Dr. Shimon Ilani, Dr. Amnon Rosenfeld and Michael Dvorchik,
the institute's chief technician who carried out electronic microscope
tests of the inscription that, the three say, were largely responsible
for the finding's authentication.
      Apart from noting that the discovery was made in Jerusalem, the
researchers do not disclose where the inscription was found. But sources
have indicated that the writing surfaced in the Temple Mount area as a
result of widescale excavation work done in recent years in the area by
Muslims, and that Palestinians relayed the fragment to a major collector
of antiquities in Jerusalem.
      The Jerusalem collector is represented by attorney Isaac Herzog, a
former cabinet secretary and currently a Knesset candidate on Labor's
list.
      The collector offered to sell the inscription to the Israel
Museum, but museum curators who examined the fragment cast doubt on its
authenticity, though they did not state categorically that the writing
was a forgery.
      Ilani and Rosenfeld refused yesterday to discuss the Israel
Museum's response with Ha'aretz. But officials from the Geology Survey
said that results of the battery of examinations that were carried out
must be taken as conclusive: It's inconceivable that such extensive
testing would fail to reveal a forgery, they said. The inscription is
authentic, they insisted, and the finding is an archaeological sensation
that could have global repercussions and that effectively vindicates
Jewish claims to the Temple Mount.
      The inscription lauds repairs carried out by King Jehoash in ways
reminiscent of the description in the Second Book of Kings. It includes
the king's request that priests collect public money to be used for the
repair of the First Temple; and there are references to the purchase of
timber and quarried stones for the carrying out of repairs on the
Temple.
      The inscription contains fragments from 2 Kings 12:15: "And they
did not ask an accounting from the men into whose hands they delivered
the money to pay out to the workmen; for they dealt honestly."
      The researchers believe that the sandstone used for the
inscription was brought from southern Jordan, or the Dead Sea region.
Materials that covered the inscription over the years date from 200-400
B.C.E., they suggest.
      Ilani and Rosenfeld speculate that during this period, the
inscription began to be covered up as a buried object. Should this
hypothesis be correct, it would mean that the inscription was exposed to
the elements for hundreds of years, before being buried some 500-600
years after it was written.
      In his conversation with Ha'aretz, Dr. Barkai noted that "the
problem here is that circumstances of the finding are not clear... We
should wait for the official scientific publication, at which time we
will be able to probe this finding carefully. Right now, of course, we
can't rule out any possibility. It's too bad that a matter of this sort
was kept under wraps, apparently due to business concerns."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=37165
      Message From Yoash, King Of Judah
      An inscribed stone tablet from the time of Yehoash, King of Judah,
has apparently been discovered on the Temple Mount. The black stone
tablet, containing ten lines of Phoenician script, describes activities
carried out by King Yehoash in the First Temple some 2,700 years ago.
      The inscription corresponds to the biblical account as recorded in
Kings II 12, including King Yehoash's call to the Cohanim (priests) to
collect money from the public for the purpose of renovating the Temple.
The inscription details the purchase of wood and "quarried stones," and
includes part of a Biblical passage recounting the event.
      Nadav Shragai of Ha'aretz revealed the news of the discovery, and
the fact that Israel's Geological Institute has found that the stone is
not a forgery. The archaeological community is still awaiting further
proof that the find is genuine. Archaeologist Dr. Gabi Barkai said,
however, that if it is authentic, it is "perhaps the most important
artifact ever uncovered in the annals of archeology in the Land of
Israel and Jerusalem." He said that it would be the earliest known
tablet precisely recounting a Biblical event, constituting rare evidence
of the existence of the First Temple, which stood on the Temple Mount
for over 400 years from the time of King Solomon until its destruction
by Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar.
      The stone tablet was analyzed for one year by Israel's Geological
Institute, which found that, geologically at least, the tablet could
date back to the time of the First Temple. Sources at the Institute say
that it would be impossible for the Institute's experts not to recognize
a forgery based on the extensive tests that were performed on the stone.
A research paper detailing the Institute's findings is to be published
in two weeks.
      The tablet was uncovered during the illegal construction work by
the Moslem Waqf on the Temple Mount. Ironically, the purpose of the Waqf
's excavations is to erase all Jewish remains on the Temple Mount
Judaism's holiest site, currently the site of a Moslem mosque.
      After its discovery, the tablet was apparently sold to an Arab
antiquities collector in Israel, represented by Atty. Yitzchak Herzog.
Herzog served as Cabinet Secretary under Prime Minister Ehud Barak and
is currently a candidate for the Knesset on the Labor party list. The
Arab collector offered to sell it to the Israel Museum, but museum
officials, doubting its authenticity, refused to purchase it.
Ciao.
--
ICQ# 108804575 - Liang Rongfa
- Divre Rabbi Yishma'el Tanna: "Ukhefattish yefotzetz sala' [Yirmiyahu
23:29], mah pattish zeh mitchalleq lekhammah nitzotzot - af miqra echad
yotze lekhammah te'amim" (Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 34b)
- Sanctus Gregorius Magnus Papa: "Divina eloquia cum legente crescunt"
(I:7:8)
--
ICQ# 108804575 - Liang Rongfa
- Divre Rabbi Yishma'el Tanna: "Ukhefattish yefotzetz sala' [Yirmiyahu
23:29], mah pattish zeh mitchalleq lekhammah nitzotzot - af miqra echad
yotze lekhammah te'amim" (Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 34b)
- Sanctus Gregorius Magnus Papa: "Divina eloquia cum legente crescunt"
(I:7:8)

 quale il Tempio non è mai esistito.
I caposaldi della propaganda palestinese fatti
crollare con una pietra?
Sarebbe un bel contrappasso.
Ma se anche fosse vera, non cambierebbe un'acca
nella propaganda
Ciao.
--
<:3)~~~maisele


Ulteriore articolo (di scettici, questa volta) su Ha-Aretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=252531
There is nothing else like it
 
By Nadav Shragai
 
On Monday morning, Prof. Nadav Neeman, a historian at Tel Aviv University,
was excited when he read the first item published about the existence of an
inscription ascribed to Jehoash king of Judea, who ruled in Jerusalem at the
end of the 9th century BCE ("Sensation or forgery? The mystery of King
Jehoash's black stone inscription," Ha'aretz, January 13). Neeman, whose
book "He'avar Hamekhonen et Ha'hoveh" [The Past that Shapes the Present} was
published only recently, remembered an article he published in 1998 in a
Dutch periodical, to which the inscription ascribed to King Jehoash is
suspiciously similar.
For years, Neeman, 63, has been studying the sources that served the writers
of the biblical book of Kings. That is his field of expertise. His research
is based on the assumption, which is shared by many Bible scholars, that the
book of Kings was written many years after the events described in it, and
that the author of the book was forced to rely on sources predating the
period in which he lived, in order to be able to reconstruct events that
took place before his time.
The Jehoash inscription is written in ancient Phoenician script on a black
stone tablet that was apparently found on the Temple Mount, and which
presumably describes the repair work done by King Jehoash in the Temple. It
was examined for many months by two scientists from the Geological Survey of
Israel [GSI] research institute, who verified its early age.
The discovery of the tablet has aroused a storm, and some scholars believe
that it is a forgery. If it turns out that the stone is authentic, the
discovery should help in examining the truth of the events described in the
book of Kings.
Neeman's article in the Dutch periodical refers to two texts from the book
of Kings with a unique vocabulary: the story of the repairs carried out by
Jehoash king of Judea in the Temple (Kings, 12), and the story of the altar
built by Ahaz king of Judea, which was similar to the altar in Damascus, in
an attempt to placate Tiglath Pileser, king of Assyria, who conquered
Damascus at the time (Kings II, 16). Neeman assumed that for those two
events one can theorize that the writer who recorded them had access to
earlier written sources.
The theory he proposed was that the writer had relied on two royal
inscriptions: one written by King Jehoash and one written by King Ahaz. "The
`Jehoash inscription,' whose authenticity was verified this week by the GSI,
is too similar to the theory I explained in my study," says Neeman, and
concludes from this "one of two things - either I hit the nail on the head,
and my theory was confirmed fantastically, or the forger read my theory and
decided to confirm it. In any case, if in the near future another
inscription turns up, the `Ahaz inscription,' I will be convinced that it's
a forgery. At present I'm only suspicious."
The appearance of the inscription, as though made to order, is not the only
reason for Neeman's suspicion. He says "the inscription looks problematic.
It's not similar to any other royal inscription I am familiar with from the
ancient Near East, and it is one of a kind in every possible way. It
contains several words that do not appear in the Bible, and mainly the
conclusion of the supposedly royal inscription: `Yitzav hashem et amo
bivrakha' [ May the Name command his people with a blessing]." The royal
inscriptions familiar to us from the ancient Near East, says Neeman,
"usually end with a curse on anyone who harms the inscription, or sometimes
with a blessing for the person who wrote the inscription, whereas here -
`Yitzav hashem et amo bivrakha'? There is nothing else like it. Even the
emphasis in the inscription on the contribution of the people of Judea to
Jehoash's repairs of the Temple is unique, because in royal inscriptions, a
king always emphasizes his own activities and completely ignores all the
others who participated in the construction."
The kings of Judea
Is it possible that the kings of Judea wrote in a style different from that
practiced by their non-Jewish counterparts in the ancient Near East? Neeman
says that the only way to prove or disprove the claim that in Judea there
was a different writing tradition is to find another royal Judean
inscription that would constitute a basis for comparison. Nevertheless, he
doesn't believe that the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the
Jehoash inscription, which presumably proves the existence of the First
Temple, will remain unsolved.
"Salvation will not come from archaeologists or epigraphists," says Neeman.
"The forgers were sufficiently sophisticated not to fall into the trap and
to contend with the criticism of both the archaeologists and the
epigraphists. There is no difficulty today in creating an inscription with
writing appropriate to the period, such as the writing on what is called the
King Jehoash inscription. This is especially true since archaeologists and
epigraphists have no precedent for this kind of inscription - such an
ancient Judaic royal inscription."
Neeman believes that those who will be the deciding factor in this debate,
in spite of everything, will be the geologists, using the tools of natural
sciences, and only after them will come the linguists and the archaeologists
who are familiar with the inscriptions of the ancient Near East. He says
"only if there is agreement among the geologists that forgery can be ruled
out, and that it is impossible to create a patina such as that on this
specific find, only then will we be obliged, perhaps, to accept their edict.
I don't suspect the geologists who examined the stone in the GSI, but we
have to hear additional opinions, and this inscription, whether it's a
forgery or an original, has to be open to examination by any scholar, and
cannot be hidden with a private collector."
Additional harsh reservations about the GSI decision regarding the
authenticity of the inscription came this week from Prof. Ed Greenstein, an
expert on the language of the Bible and ancient Semitic languages, also of
Tel Aviv University. Greenstein points out that the way in which the
expression "bedek bayit" was used in the inscription shows that the forger
apparently did not understand what it meant in biblical Hebrew. "In the
language of the Bible, `bedek' is the cracks in the building," explains
Greenstein. "You reinforce the `bedek habayit' [the cracks in the building].
If you do `bedek bayit' you are making a crack in the building and ruining
it. `Bedek habayit,' in the language of the Bible, is the problem that must
be repaired. Someone who understands biblical Hebrew would not have used the
later expression [in modern Hebrew, it means making repairs] that was
derived from this expression."
Greenstein says that the sentence "vehaya hayom hazeh le'edut" [and may this
day be testimony] makes strange use of the word "edut." "The word `edut'
doesn't exist in ancient biblical Hebrew, i.e. during the First Temple
period, except in the meaning of `brit' [covenant], as in the `aron ha'edut'
[the Ark of the Covenant]," says Greenstein. The expression used during that
period for the word `edut' in its present meaning is `ed' [which today means
witness]. This issue, too, in my opinion, proves that it's a forgery." He
brings additional proof: "There is no such thing in biblical Hebrew as
`titzlah hamelakha' [may the work succeed]. In ancient speech, people
succeed, and not the work they do. This expression that the forger used is
apparently based on a later text from the Second Temple period, as for
example from Chapter 1 in Psalms, where it says, `vekhol asher ya'aseh
yatzliah' [and anything he does will succeed].
Moabite forgeries
Opposite those who reject the possibility that the inscription is authentic,
to the point of saying that it is a forgery, stands the GSI, whose
examinations determined that it was an authentic find. The method of
examination and the central series of proofs have already been published
("The Geological Survey for Israel: The `King Jehoash inscription' is not a
forgery," Ha'aretz, January 14), and at least for the time being nobody is
rejecting it scientifically.
Geologists Dr. Shimon Ilani and Dr. Amnon Rosenfeld, who wrote the paper
verifying the authenticity of the inscription, say that they would not have
hesitated to reject the inscription and to determine that it was a forgery,
had there been a period after the sentence `va'aas et bedek habayit' [and I
did the repairs], which is ascribed to King Jehoash himself. "Such a usage
is in fact not common in the language of the period," says Ilani, "but the
sentence has a continuation: `va'aas et bedek habayit, ve'hakirot mesaviv,
ve'et hayatziya ve'hasvakhim ve'halulim ve'hagraot ve'hadlatot' [references
to repairs to different parts of the Temple]. Jehoash did everything, and it
is possible that at the time, for reasons of brevity, or for linguistic
reasons, they used this language. Prof. Andre Lamer of France, who examined
the inscription, did not reject this possibility."
Ilani and Rosenfeld choose their words sparingly, and are very careful to
respect those who apparently reject their discovery, but they remain
insistent: "We are willing to confront any geologist or scientist and to
answer any question that tries to undermine the way in which we studied the
inscription, and the conclusions stemming from it," they say. "The bottom
line is that the find is authentic."
The colleagues of Ilani and Rosenfeld at the GSI are less restrained,
especially in light of the position of several archaeologists (Meir Ben Dov
and Dr. Ayelet Mazar), who had reservations this week about the decision.
"Archaeologists have no criteria to discuss authenticity when they limit
themselves only to materials that they have taken out of the ground, or
materials about which they know with certainty how, when and with whom they
were taken out of the ground," says a geologist who is a colleague of
Rosenfeld and Ilani. "An archaeologist has a problem when he methodically
rejects anything that has not come from an organized dig. But the museums
are full of exhibits that were bought from antique dealers and from the
underworld. The ivory pomegranate that used to hang on the robes of the
priests and was dated to the First Temple period - where was it dug up?
Where were all of Moshe Dayan's Philistine sarcophagi found? Everything was
stolen. Did all the exhibits in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem (where they
rejected the `Jehoash inscription') come from organized digs?"
At the GSI they mention that experts in the development of writing Dr. Ada
Yardeni and Prof. Andre Lamer, historian Prof. Shmuel Safrai and
archaeologist Dr. Gabi Barkai, have not ruled that the find is a forgery.
Barkai and Safrai have even tended to assume that the find is authentic.
Prof. Avi Hurvitz, an expert on the historical development of the Hebrew
language, supplied a balanced view of the controversial find. "The problem
in the study of Tanakh [Hebrew Bible] is that these are literary texts that
were copied from one generation to the next," explains Hurvitz. "The
versions we have today are relatively late. We can't be certain that the
Tanakh was written during the time of the events themselves or in proximity
to them. The stele of Mesha King of Moab, which was discovered in
Transjordan and is accepted by scholars as an authentic inscription, was
written in the middle of the 9th century BCE (The Mesha Stele, which was
discovered in 1868, was written to commemorate the victories of the king of
Moab over the alliance of the kings of Israel, Judea and Edom). Nobody
changed it, edited or copied it. It is authentic. The Tanakh, on the other
hand, is a text that was copied and edited, and we can't be certain of the
antiquity and the authenticity of everything written there."
Hurvitz says that "the Jehoash inscription seems at first glance to accord
with what is told in the book of Kings on the one hand, and with the Mesha
Stele on the other, both in terms of the form of the letters and in terms of
style. A scholar who determines that it is original will say: "Here is an
inscription that is perfectly in keeping with the Tanakh, and therefore this
is testimony to the truth of events that are described in the Tanakh.' In
addition, the text is very similar in the form of the letters and in style
to the Mesha inscription. Doubters will say: `This bride is too beautiful,'
and will suspect a forgery. `This man,' they will say to themselves, `may
have seen the Mesha Stele, forged the inscription according to the style of
the Mesha stone, and even made sure to suit its contents to what is written
in the Tanakh.' I have to say in their favor that the similarity to the
Mesha Stele is in fact suspicious."
Suspicion of everything related to the Mesha Stele is so great because
immediately after its discovery, all kinds of archaeological forgeries
reached the market, pretending to be Moabite antiquities. "The Institute of
Archaeology at the university has a large collection of finds, which is
called the Moabite forgery collection," says Hurvitz. "Therefore, when
people see such a clear similarity to `Mesha,' suspicion is aroused."
Hurvitz also believes that the final answer will be given by the geologists.
"They are outside the debate of stylistic, linguistic, biblical and
historical similarities, they are entirely objective in all these debates,"
he says. "You give them the inscription, they check the patina and tell you:
`In the case before us, it's from 400 BCE.' This determination removes the
inscription attributed to Jehoash from all the periods for which there is a
suspicion of a modern forgery."
In spite of this, Hurvitz is hesitant about relying on the two geologists
who researched the inscription. "They are first-rate, and I have heard good
things about them," he says, but only after additional geologists, perhaps
from other schools of research, if they exist, will prove to us with signs
and wonders, by means of findings which are external to our debates, with a
kind of external control factor, that this inscription is from the period of
Jehoash, will we be able to give this find the benefit of the doubt, and to
determine that it is in fact authentic. The significance will of course be
enormous: An external verification of a biblical text that confirms the
existence of the First Temple."
Ciao.
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://usenet.libero.it

 
Altro scettico, anzi, convinto dell'imbroglio:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=252958
Jehoash tablet said found near Muslim cemetery 
 
By Nadav Shragai 
 
 
 
 
The inscription attributed to King Jehoash whose discovery was
announced earlier this week was reportedly found near Jerusalem's
Muslim cemetery, outside the eastern wall of the Temple Mount, not far
from Golden Gate, according to information obtained by Ha'aretz.
Jehoash ruled in Jerusalem at the end of the ninth century B.C.E. The
inscription has been authenticated by the National Infrastructure
Ministry's Geological Survey of Israel.
Three different people and institutions involved in examining the
stone told Ha'aretz that representatives of the collector who owns the
stone told them it was found near the Muslim cemetery. One added that
he was told it had been found following a landslide or flood.
Prof. Yosef Naveh of Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a well-known
expert on the development of the alphabet, said agents of the
collector brought it to him for inspection in 2001. He said he was
asked to meet the agents in a Jerusalem hotel room, where he found two
people: a man who introduced himself as Tzur and "an Arab youth who
never opened his mouth the entire time, so I don't know his name.
[Tzur] told me where the stone was found [near the Muslim cemetery]
and even speculated that the stone had actually come from the inner
sections of the Temple Mount, but that its finders - Palestinian
Muslims - were afraid to say so, due to the religious-political
sensibilities of the compound."
Tzur, Naveh continued, "made me promise not to mention [the stone] or
talk about it with anyone, because the life of the Palestinian who
found and sold it would be endangered," and he indeed refrained from
mentioning the inscription until it was made public by the Geological
Survey and reported in Ha'aretz, which he considered sufficient to
release him from his promise. He said he soon plans to publish his
conclusions about the inscription - which he believes is a forgery.
Another person who examined the inscription said he was also told it
had been found near the Muslim cemetery, not far from Golden Gate. He
said the "courier" who brought it to him seemed very nervous and was
constantly checking to make sure that no representatives of the
Antiquities Authority were present. "He was very afraid the artifact
would be taken from him, and throughout the tests we conducted, he
wandered around ceaselessly, in great tension."
Both Naveh and the other two people who inspected the inscription said
the collector's representatives refused to leave the stone during the
examinations, which lasted for a few hours each time, and also refused
to leave it there for lengthier tests.
 
Ciao.