|
< Back to “Leading Israeli Scientist Declares Pomegranate Inscription Authentic” NewsA Committee of One: Yuval Goren Talkback Add Your Comment
In September 2004 a committee was appointed jointly, according to the committee report, by “the director of the Israel Museum and the Israel Antiquities Authority [IAA]” to consider the authenticity of the Ivory Pomegranate Inscription. According to the report, the committee unanimously found the inscription to be a forgery. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that one member of the committee, Professor Yuval Goren, found the inscription to be a forgery. First of all, it was not a joint committee. According to the Israel Museum curator supposedly on the committee, Michal Dayagi-Mendels, the purported “joint committee” was “determined and led” by the IAA. Next, Dayagi-Mendels was not really a member of the committee. She was only there “as an observer,” she reports. Yet she is listed in the report as a member. Dayagi-Mendels is also listed as one of the authors of the committee report published in the Israel Exploration Journal1. She now states that “my name was added without my knowledge.” And she “did not participate in writing the article.” Moreover, only Goren had any expertise in looking through a microscope to detect forgeries. The only two members who were epigraphists (Shmuel Ahituv and Aaron Demsky) had barely looked through a microscope before, and surely never to attempt to detect a forgery. The other “members” of the “committee” were even further afield from the expertise required to detect a forgery by examining letters through a microscope. Goren was in fact an old hand at “creating” a committee. He had previously led the IAA committee that found the James Ossuary Inscription (“James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”) to be a forgery. Several members of this “committee” did not express themselves regarding the inscription’s authenticity, but they were counted in the “unanimous” committee decision. Others either found original patina in some of the letters or said they were “forced” to change their mind regarding authenticity based on Yuval Goren’s scientific expertise. In fact, the decision that the James Ossuary Inscription is a forgery is based on an oxygen isotope study that was analyzed by Yuval Goren (and performed by Avner Ayalon) but in which no one else on the committee had any expertise whatever. When analyzed by other experts, Goren’s oxygen isotope test (never before used for this purpose) turned out to be badly flawed. One final point: In the report of the BAR meeting at the Israel Museum in May 2007, those attending (on both sides of the issue) devoted themselves to the partial letters of the inscription that either stop before an ancient break (proving forgery) or go into the break (proving authenticity).Only three letters are determinative. In their report, the “Israel Museum/IAA committee members admit that as to one of the letters, they were mistaken: they now admit that it does go into the break.” As for the second letter, “it is difficult to tell.” The third letter (a heh) they simply ignore! They just don’t discuss it, and yet it is the critical letter. Will someone ask Yuval Goren why he ignored the heh? Why did he fail to discuss it? Does he now admit it goes into the break? Read a scholar’s reaction to the IAA’s formation of a committee to examine the James Ossuary.  Notes1 Yuval Goren, Shmuel Avituv, Avner Ayalon, Miyam Bar-Matthews, Uzi Dahari, Michal Dayagi-Mendels, Aaron Demsky, Nadav Levin, “A Re-Examination of the Inscribed Ivory Pomegranate from the Israel Museum,” Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 55, p.3 (2005)
Romã do temploAfter the images of the artifact made by Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) conducted by Professor Yitzhak Romano, Hebrew University confirming the authenticity of the pomegranate, anyone still doubt? I would MUCH, note that in the Museum of Jerusalem inform the name of the person responsible for this finding, ie the pomegranate, as important part to Biblical history. • • • • • • • Yuval GorenYuval Goren manifests the values and ethics of Jezebel, the goal is to bring chaos to order, destruction to scientific growth. Until he gets the help he needs, the BAR should shun him. billhalle@optonline.net • • • • • • • Who found the Pomegranate?Can you tell me how the Pomegranate was found? By Whom, when? • • • • • • • Ron WyattI always believed Ron Wyatt found this ivory pomegranate in a cave under The Garden Tomb. • • • • • • • Almond Bud TheoryRegarding the theory of the Almond Bud versus the Pomegranate: Almond flowers have 5 petals whereas pomegranates have 6 protrusions at their tip, as with the ivory in question. Just an observation. Pace, Kimberlee • • • • • • • Ivory PomegranateI wonder if they all have it wrong. That is not an ivory pomegranate. It is an ivory almond bud! It represents Aaron’s rod that budded, and was one of the three items placed in the Ark. The almond buds on Aaron’s rod confirmed the priesthood as clearly describ3ed in the Bible. The almond bud has a lot more to do with the priesthood of Solomon’s Temple then the pomegranate which was only frill on the robe. • • • • • • • pomegranateIt would seem to me that the default position for a large number of scholars is to deny the authenticity of artifacts. We all know that there are forgeries from time to time, but why is it that there is this bias against authenticity? Fortunately, there are careful scholars who keep working to demonstrate how wrong these naysayers really are. But one wonders if the latter will ever learn from their mistakes. Would it not be more profitable to, after careful and cautious observations, come down on the side of authenticity unless there is clear evidence to the contrary? In my mind it would reinforce the desire to dig more instead of having the prevailing attitude: "Well, it's probably going to be deemed a fake so why bother?" • • • • • • • Historical Anomaly adn the New ChronologyThe current authentication of the ivory pomegranate artifact is probably one of the best proofs for the New Chronolgy model formulated by David Rohl. According to this model Egyptian chronology should be lowered by some 300 years. This would mean that the Temple in Jerusalem was built in the Late Bronze Age. As you are probably aware inscribed on the pomeganate is a dedication to the Temple in Jerusalem. Dr. Andre Lemaire many years ago examined the writing and determined it was from the 8th century BCE. However examination of the pomegranate determined that the pomegranate itself was from the Late Bronze Age. So according to the conventional chronology this would pose an extreme anomaly. Of course one could argue that somehow the individual who made this inscription used an ancient pomegranate. But this, after a little thought, will be rejected out of hand. Are we really to believe that someone had in his posession an antique dating some 500 years earlier and decided to inscribe on it. Also because the inscription reads".... consecrated to the Priests" This would mean that it was intednded to be used in the Temple. Why would anyone use something so old and delicate in the Temple. Clearly any item intended for use in the Temple would have been made then, not from a time when according to the conventional chronology the Cannanites ruled the land. Any item from that time would have been considered pagan. Therefore having this pomegranate which dates to the Late Bronze Age and yet having the writing date hundreds of years later is an extreme problem. Unless of course one adopts the New Chronolgy model which could rectify this historical anomaly. Rabbi Stuart Steinberg • • • • • • • Pomegranate ReaxminationIn his written report Prof. Roman does indeed state that the patina in the incised letters is ancient. He also states that he "found no evidence that there are missing letters" and that it was not clear to him on what basis it was suggested that the missing letters were 'Yod' ,'He', 'Waw'. These missing letters are required for the suggested reading 'Yahweh' Therefore a possible conclusion from his expert opinion is that while the pomegranate is ancient, it is not necessarily associated with the Temple in Jerusalem, or with any other pre-exilic temple. For the that, apparently, more evidence would be required. • • • • • • • |
 The Biblical Archaeology Society is an educational non-profit 501c(3) organization. Make a tax-deductible gift today. BRAND NEWAncient Board Games February 11, 2013 The Nubian Pyramids of Sedeinga February 08, 2013 The Last Days of Hattusa February 08, 2013 Who Were the Essenes? February 07, 2013 Charles Fellows in Aphrodisias February 05, 2013 MOST POPULARHow Archaeology Illuminates the Bible Why Jesus Went Back to Galilee FREE BIBLE AND ARCHAEOLOGY ARTICLESWhere Is Sodom? The Case for Tall el-Hammam FIRST PERSON: What to Do with Unprovenanced Artifacts—Publish or Perish? BIBLICAL VIEWS: Images of Crucifixion: Fresh Evidence ARCHAEOLOGICAL VIEWS: Israelite Life Before the Kings THE BIBLE IN THE NEWS: Make No Bones About It SCHOLAR’S STUDYMore on the Mosaics December 12, 2012 Critical Biblical Scholarship—A Response October 10, 2012 BAR Authors Respond to Readers’ Letters October 10, 2012 Who Really Invented the Alphabet—Illiterate Miners or Educated Sophisticates? September 13, 2012 Three Takes on the Oldest Hebrew Inscription August 08, 2012
Forgery Conference
|
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY NETWORK LINKS |
Full disclosure: Yuval Goren has accused the BAR editor of having a “pivotal role” in fraud and the forgery. For the text of Goren’s accusation, see the January/February 2009 BAR.
