Artemus

http://www.msnbc.com/news/858803.asp?0cv=CB20&cp1=1

It's deja vu all over again.

"if authenticated, would be a rare piece of physical evidence confirming biblical narrative."

"The origin of the stone tablet is unclear, making it difficult to establish authenticity."

"...the collector asked the Israel Museum to determine the authenticity of the inscription and was told the museum’s experts could not rule out a forgery.

"Hershel Shanks, editor of the Washington-based Biblical Archaeology Review, said the tablet, if authentic, would be 'visual, tactile evidence that reaches across 2,800 years.'"

Jan Haugland

Thanks for sharing.

I noticed this paragraph:
How do you carbon date stone? As far as I know, carbon dating can only be done on something that was once alive.

Not only the origins are murky here. Remember this stone is being used politically, related to the struggles for the holy sites between Jews and Muslims.

- Jan

...who rants and raves every day at Secular Blasphemy

Greg2003

Muslim clerics insist, despite overwhelming archaeological evidence, that no Jewish shrine ever stood at the site. That claim was made by Palestinian officials in failed negotiations with Israel in 2000 over who would be sovereign there.

overwhelming evidence? I thought there was a reasonable dispute about whether the mount was the site of the temple. Can anyone enlighten me about this?

capnkirk

While there may be a dispute of secular interest over whether Solomon ever built a temple on a given site, ultimately it has no bearing on the existence of the god worshipped there. No more than proof that the Aztecs made human sacrifice offerings to Quetzacoatl "proves" the existence of Quetzacoatl, or the existence of contemporary Jews proves the existence of yaweh.

Best to leave this dispute in the political arena where it belongs, and to recognize that theist imputations of theological implications are just examples of theist "logic".

Haran

Funny... That's exactly what I said.

We have any scientists here? Could the patina be carbon dated? Maybe there was something stuck to the thing...

I will not rule out that this is possibly authentic. Once again, I will look forward to scholarly comment. However, if the picture on the above website is of the actual find, I am suspicious. The inscription is very legible and seems hardly worn. Perhaps this is due to its surface and whatever might have protected it from the elements... Seems a little odd to me at the moment (yet another anonymous collector and an artifact with probably no provenance).

Hmm...

beausoleil

Conceivably you could carbon date a stone. Carbon in a carbonate would stop equilibrating with the atmosphere when deposited, whether or not life was involved in the deposition. It's not done much since the half life is too short for most geological problems. (Carbon dating dates the time since carbon last equilibrated with the atmosphere - life keeps things equilibrated but it's not the only way.)

But then it's not the age of the stone that's in question, but the age of the inscription. I bet the sandstone is not 2800 years old. How you carbon date an inscription is beyond me. Perhaps if the stone was treated in some way when insrcibed the treatment might have some carbon that could be dated, but I think it might be quite a tricky argument.

In some circumstances you can date how long a stone has been exposed on the surface by cosmic ray exposure dating, but that's not relevant here.

Jan Haugland

Thanks for the comments, beausoleil. Yes, I meant dating the inscription not the stone itself. I assume there could be some residues of pollen etc on the stone that could be carbon dated, but how can anyone be certain it has the same date as the inscription itself?

Considering how extremely politicised so-called "Biblical archeology" is, especially in Israel, I found it extremely suspicious that a politically convenient artifact should surface in such a "murky" way. And the Geological Society just seemed so extremely eager to consider it genuine; some of that may be due to journalistic filtering of course.

Anyone have better sources to the story than that msnbc article?



- Jan

...who rants and raves every day at Secular Blasphemy

Sauron

What about carbon scoring on a rock? From fire? I think the article mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem, and some gold flecking that they postulate might have been "burnt into" the stone as a result of such destruction?

Haran

Why is there so little attention for this find?? Is this media burn-out? They don't want another James ossuary media frenzy?

Anyway, I did find a link on the BAS (Biblical Archaeology Society) webpage to a HaAretz article on the find. So far, this is the only thing I've found besides the MSNBC article:

HaAretz article on Solomon tablet

BTW, I attempted to read the text in the picture on MSNBC (it is, unfortunately, the middle of the tablet inscription). The letters are very (too?) clear.

One can see "Judah" or YHDH at the end of the first fully visible line (minus the last letter - a lamed). I think the word before it (words separated by dots) is the word for "cities" or (RY in the construct form. This short phrase would thus be "cities of Judah".

On the second line, one can read "money of the sacred offerings" or KSP HQD#M (cf. 2 Ki 12:5 in BHS). Another phrase in the sixth line of the visible text says "damage of the temple" or BDQ HBYT (cf. 2Ki 12:6).

Anyway, the story on the tablet is apparently very similar to the text of 2Ki 12:1-6 and 11-17. Indeed, they share some of the same words and phrasing as is obvious from my information above.

Here's a link to paleo-hebrew letters if anyone is interested in following along:

Paleo-Hebrew Alphabet

Haran

How convenient...