Introduction

The Jerusalem Syndrome is a clinical psychiatric diagnosis first identified in the 1930s by Dr. Heinz Herman, one of the founders of modern psychiatric research in Israel. Subsequent research was conducted by Dr.Yair Bar El, former director of the Kfar Shaul Psychiatric Hospital in Jerusalem, involving 470 tourists who had been declared temporarily insane[2].

The Jerusalem Syndrome is a temporary state of sudden and intense religious delusions, brought on while visiting or living in Jerusalem. The clinical symptoms usually begin with a vague and extremely intense excitement. The patients often perform "biblical" or otherwise eccentric activities, having a strong feeling of mission. They typically adopt a lifestyle of religious observance and attach unusual significance to biblical relics. The most interesting feature, considering the extreme behaviors associated with the Jerusalem Syndrome, is that the subjects sometimes have no prior history of psychiatric difficulty and exhibit none afterward. These patients, if they recover, are typically embarrassed by their behavior, which they cannot explain.

During the last three decades, a number of unprovenanced archaeological artifacts have surfaced on the local antiquities market. A common feature of these artifacts is their reference to Jerusalem through attributions to major biblical landmarks or personalities such as the Jerusalem Temple, Judahite kings and other biblical officials, or Jesus Christ. This attribution may be made both on the item through a dedication text, and about it through opinions by persons who are sources of authority in various scholarly fields. Methodologically, it seems that this peculiar treatment of these artifacts by members of the scientific community may be interpreted as a milder symptom of the Jerusalem Syndrome. In what follows, I would like to present brief narratives of several such items, as they relate to the hazardous role of the Jerusalem Syndrome in biblical archaeology.

The Ivory Pomegranate

A small ornamental bone object in the form of a pomegranate bearing a short palaeo-Hebrew inscription in Phoenician script will be the first subject of discussion. An anonymous antiquities collector sold this item to the Israel Museum in Jerusalem in 1989 [3]. The most remarkable feature on it is the inscription, which reads: lbyt [YHW]H qds khnm (Belonging to the Temp[le of Yahw]eh, holy to the priests). After first being published in a French scientific journal by the renowned Semitic epigrapher André Lemaire of the Sorbonne [4], it was published again in the popular magazine Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) in an article under bold headlines, with particular reference to the pomegranate as the only existing remain of the Solomonic Temple in Jerusalem [5].

The BAR articles also referred to the results of microscopic examination that was conducted on the patina covering the letters by Lemaire. The examinations of the patina revealed that traces of what seemed to be ancient patina, covering the surface of the object, were also to be found within the incisions. These traces were compelling for the inscription's antiquity and, therefore, its authenticity. The patina and the deposits on the artifact's surface and the inscription seem to have developed naturally during burial, as modern materials were detected.

However, shortly after the first publication in BAR and the purchase of the pomegranate by the Israel Museum, there were some skeptical voices. Several scholars referred to the ostraca as being "too good to be true." Moreover, in a review article, the paleographer Christopher A. Rollston stated that the inscription was a probable or possible forgery, including an assortment of syntax and letter styles from various published epigraphic sources. As Rollston stated, Frank Moore Cross of Harvard University also shared this opinion [6].

As a result of these and other uncertainties, the directors of the Israel Museum and the Israel Antiquities Authority decided to submit the pomegranate for more detailed laboratory examinations. This time the pomegranate, the inscription, and the patina were examined by a group of experts representing the relevant disciplines of epigraphy and material sciences. In a detailed report by the research committee the inscription on the pomegranate was declared a modern fake [7].

The analytical results clearly demonstrated that prior to the process of patina deposition, a sharp tool was used to engrave the letters; in addition to an old break that diminished about a third of the pomegranate's body, the process of engraving the letters created new breaks. The inscription was then polished in order to give it an ancient look. The simulated patina that was then applied over the inscription contained a mixture of powdered calcite and limestone, charcoal, and some corroded bronze particles; modern silicone glue was used to adhere it to the inscription and the pomegranate surface. From these data it is evident that the previous results were somewhat hasty. It is of interest to note that the pomegranate, which was originally offered for sale for the modest price of $3,000, was eventually sold to the Israel Museum in Jerusalem for the sum of $550,000 after its publication in BAR.

The Baruch Ben Neriyah Bulla

A Late Iron Age bulla, or clay seal impression, will be the next subject of discussion. This item was sold to Shlomo Moussaieff, a well-known antique collector from London. The seal of an impression referring to Baruch son of Neriyah the Scribe stamped the bulla. After first being published in a scientific book [8], Hershel Shanks, the editor of BAR, published it in an article in his journal under bold headlines, with particular reference to the bulla as the only material evidence for the personal scribe of the biblical prophet Jeremiah [9].

However, shortly after the first publication in BAR there were some skeptical voices. In a reviewed corpus of West Semitic bullae, the epigrapher Benjamin Sass of Tel Aviv University suggested, on the basis of its text and style, that the bulla might be modern forgery. It included an assortment of syntax and letter styles from various published epigraphic sources [10]. As a result of these uncertainties, the owner decided to submit the bulla for more detailed laboratory examinations. As a consequence, the clay, the impression, and the patina coating it were examined by the present author and by Avner Ayalon of the Geological Survey of Israel (GSI). Samples of the patina were studied using optical microscopy and a scanning electron microscope equipped with an energy dispersive spectrometer to investigate the element content.

The results suggested that the bulla might be a modern fake. The analytical results clearly demonstrated that prior to the process of patina deposition the entire bulla was impregnated by regular, carbon-based glue. The simulated patina that was then applied over the impression and other parts of the bulla contained powdered limestone and modern glue. It is of interest to note that an identical bulla, sealed in the same manner, is on display in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. The latter still awaits its laboratory examination.

The Moussaieff Ostraca

A pair of Late Iron Age ostraca, written by the same hand on different topics, are the next subject of discussion. Oded Golan, an antiquities collector from Tel Aviv, sold these items to Shlomo Moussaieff, a well-known antique collector from London. The first and most remarkable ostracon is an order by King Josiah of Judah to bring three shekels of Tarshish silver to the House of God. The second is a plea by a widow to an official for preservation of rights over her property. After first being published in two scientific journals [11], Hershel Shanks, the editor of BAR, published them in a series of articles in his journal under bold headlines, with particular reference to the first ostracon as one of the few material evidences of the Solomonic Temple in Jerusalem and to its text as having been authenticated by the renowned Semitic epigrapher André Lemaire of the Sorbonne [12].

The BAR articles also referred to the results of scientific examinations that were conducted on the patina covering the letters by the Microfocus Oy laboratory in Helsinki [13]. The examinations of the patina revealed that it had two phases — the first carbonatic and the other siliceous — indicating its sequential deposition over the inscription. The researcher concluded that this sequential deposition was presumably slow and natural, hence proving the antiquity of the inscription below. Therefore, the patina and the deposits on the surface seem to have developed naturally during burial. No modern elements or materials including adhesives were detected [14].

However, shortly after the first publication in BAR there were some skeptical voices. Several scholars referred to the ostraca as being "too good to be true." Moreover, in a review article in the Israel Exploration Journal, the epigraphers Israel Eph'al and Yosef Naveh of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem suggested, on the basis of text and style, that the inscriptions may be modern forgeries. They included an assortment of syntax and letter styles from various published epigraphic sources [15]. A similar opinion was later expressed by Christopher A. Rollston [16]. As a result of these uncertainties, the owner decided to submit the ostraca for more detailed laboratory examinations. This time, the sherds, the ink, and the patina of the two ostraca were examined in the laboratories of Aventis Research and Technologies, a biotechnological corporation based in Frankfurt, Germany, with branches in the United States.

A detailed report by the head of the laboratory and a fellow researcher suggests that the two ostraca are modern fakes [17]. Further analyses were made by the present author and by Avner Ayalon, Mira Bar Matthews, and Bettina Schilman of the GSI [18]. The analytical results clearly demonstrate that prior to the process of patina deposition a sharp tool was used to modify the letters. The simulated patina that was then applied over the inscription contained modern paraffin, lime, and some ash and clay. From these data it is evident that the results of Microfocus were somewhat out of focus [19]. It is of interest to note that in the recent discussion on the authenticity of the ostraca in the 2003 May-June volume of BAR, the Aventis results are completely overlooked by the editor [20].

The Jerusalem Lamp

A first century C.E. oil lamp, with seven nozzles made of Senonian chalk and decorated with Jewish motifs, is the next subject of discussion. Oded Golan, an antiquities collector from Tel Aviv, sold part of the ownership of this item to another Israeli collector for the sum of $100,000. Extremely well preserved, the lamp is remarkable in its unique combination of seven nozzles, the depiction of the Temple menorah, and a set of icons representing the seven species of crops of which the Holy Land was blessed. The lamp was brought for study to Varda Sussman, an expert in ancient oil lamps, prior to a proposed publication in BAR under bold headlines, as the only tangible evidence from the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem. The proposed article also referred to the results of scientific examinations that were conducted on the patina covering the lamp by the two co-authors, Drs. Shimon Ilani and Amnon Rosenfeld from the Geological Survey of Israel. Samples of the patina were studied using a scanning electron microscope, equipped with an energy dispersive spectrometer to investigate the element content, and under ultraviolet light. A special examination was made to check whether modern contamination or adhesives are involved in the patina. The examinations of the patina revealed that it had two phases — the first carbonatic and the other siliceous — indicating its sequential deposition over the lamp. In their report, Ilani and Rosenfeld indicated that the patina and the deposits on the artifact's surface seem to have developed naturally during burial. No modern elements or materials including adhesives were detected [21].

However, shortly after the submission of the article for publication in BAR there was a skeptical voice. Varda Sussman referred to the lamp as being "too good to be true." In her part of the article, she hinted that because of its style the lamp might be a modern forgery, including an assortment of motifs from various published sources. As a result of this uncertainty, Hershel Shanks, the editor of BAR, decided to reject the paper for publication. In his letter to the authors, the editor explained as follows: "For authenticity Mrs. Sussman says she relies mostly on the geologists. Oddly, they do not confront the issue of authenticity directly. They seem to assume it. All they can say is that the authenticity must be made on the basis of stylistic interpretation. And Mrs. Sussman has already told us she cannot do this" [22].

The James Ossuary

It is of interest to note that despite these harsh words, it was Mr. Shanks who accepted only a few months later and without any questioning the authenticity evaluation that was very hastily made by Ilani and Rosenfeld for another first century C.E. artifact made of Senonian chalk [23]. This time it was a modest stone ossuary bearing the Aramaic inscription, Yaakov bar Yoseph, Achui de Yeshua (James, the son of Joseph, his brother of Jesus). Oded Golan, an antiquities collector from Tel Aviv, owns this item.

After its first presentation at a dramatic press conference, Hershel Shanks, the editor of BAR, published the item in a series of articles in his journal under bold headlines, with reference to the ossuary as one of the only material evidences of Jesus Christ and to its text as having been authenticated by Prof. André Lemaire of the Sorbonne [24]. These publications also referred to the results of the scientific examinations that were conducted by Ilani and Rosenfeld, with subsequent tests by scientists from the Royal Ontario Museum [25]. The samples were studied using a scanning electron microscope, equipped with an energy dispersive spectrometer to investigate the element content, and under ultraviolet light. A special examination was made to check whether modern contamination or adhesives were involved in the patina. In their report, Ilani and Rosenfeld indicated that the patina and the deposits on the artifact's surface and the inscription seem to have developed naturally during burial. No modern elements or materials including adhesives were detected.

However, shortly after the first publication in BAR there were some skeptical voices. Several scholars referred to the ossuary as being "too good to be true." Moreover, in a review article for the Bible and Interpretation website, the epigrapher Rochelle Altman suggested, on the basis of its text and style, that the inscription may be a modern forgery. It included an assortment of syntax and letter styles from various published epigraphic sources [26]. Such a view was later suggested also by Frank Moore Cross of Harvard University [27]. As a result of these uncertainties, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) decided to submit the ossuary to more detailed examinations.

This time the inscription and the patina of the ossuary were examined by a group of independent epigraphers and geoarchaeologists from various institutions and universities in Israel. In a detailed report by Avner Ayalon and me from the Geological Survey of Israel, the inscription on the otherwise authentic ossuary is suggested as being a modern fake. The analytical results clearly demonstrate that after the natural patination process a sharp tool was used to create or modify the letters. Fake patina was then applied, containing chalk powder and calcite that was dissolved in hot water and then used to cover the freshly cut inscription. By this method, the fake patina could not be distinguished from the authentic one by the use of the rather unsophisticated method of ultraviolet light or by simple chemical analyses that yielded only the presence of calcium carbonate at both the authentic and fake patinas. However, with the combination of micromorphologic study and the examination of the isotopic ratios of oxygen and carbon within the calcite, it became clear that the patina covering the freshly cut letters was artificial and completely different from the patina covering the rest of the surface of the ossuary [28].

Evidently, as had been noted in an earlier case, the previous scientists who examined the inscription and Shanks himself did not confront the issue of authenticity directly. They seemed to assume it. Still, it is of interest to note that in the discussions on the authenticity of the ossuary in the subsequent issues of BAR and on the Internet, the analytical results were challenged by various extremely "intellectual" arguments. For example, it was said that the ossuary was placed by the collector's mother on her balcony, where it was constantly washed with tap water that somehow changed the isotopic composition of the calcite—but only inside the inscription, not around it. It was claimed that someone used a sharp tool in modern times to vigorously clean the letters prior to their cover by the patina, which was still considered as authentic and hence developed naturally during a long period of time. Another defender of the authenticity of the inscription suggested that the inscription was cleaned by acid, which changed the isotopic composition of the oxygen in the patina covering the script [29]. The last comment is especially remarkable for its lack of understanding of even basic chemistry.

Recently the world has been informed that the carbonates found within a few modern Israeli cleanser powders were found to have the same isotopic composition as the ones found by Ayalon within the fake patina coating the inscription. It seems that, for Shanks, the last argument proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the inscription on the ossuary must be authentic. Shanks' co-author of the book, James, Brother of Jesus, even implied that the IAA committee, composed only of Jewish scholars, had a hidden theological agenda against the Christian world [30].

The Jehoash Inscription

A black stone tablet bearing an engraved Hebrew inscription in Phoenician script is the last subject of discussion. Oded Golan, an antiquities collector from Tel Aviv, made an attempt to sell this item to the Israel Museum in Jerusalem for four million dollars. This remarkable tablet bears an inscription commemorating the repairs made by king Jehoash of Judah to the House of God. After first being published in the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz [31], the editor of BAR published it in a series of articles in his journal under bold headlines, with the remark that if authentic, it is one of the few material evidences of the Solomonic Temple in Jerusalem [32]. The articles also referred to the results of the scientific examinations that were conducted by Drs. Shimon Ilani and Amnon Rosenfeld of the Geological Survey of Israel. The latter studied samples of the patina and the rock using a scanning electron microscope equipped with an energy dispersive spectrometer to investigate the element content, X-ray diffraction, and inductively coupled plasma spectrometry to study the mineral and element composition.

A special examination was made to check whether modern contamination or adhesives could be detected within the patina. The examinations of the patina revealed that it had two phases —carbonatic and siliceous — indicating its sequential deposition over the inscription. In their report, Ilani and Rosenfeld indicated that the patina and the deposits on the artifact's surface and the inscription seem to have developed naturally during burial. No modern elements or materials including adhesives were detected [33]. These observations led Ilani and Rosenfeld to sweeping, even fantastic conclusions [34] that were later omitted from the published report.

However, shortly after publication in Ha'aretz and elsewhere, there were some skeptical voices. Several scholars referred to the tablet as being "too good to be true" [35]. Moreover, the epigraphers Israel Eph'al of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Frank Moore Cross of Harvard University suggested, on the basis of its text and style, that the inscription is a modern forgery. It included an assortment of syntax and letter styles from various published epigraphic sources [36]. At the same time the present author criticized the conclusions reached by Ilani and Rosenfeld regarding the authenticity of the patina over the inscription [37].

As a result of these uncertainties, the IAA decided to submit the inscription for more detailed examinations. This time, the inscription and the patina coating it were examined by the same group of unrelated epigraphers and geoarchaeologists from various institutions and universities in Israel. In a detailed report by Avner Ayalon and me from the Geological Survey of Israel, the Jehoash inscription is suggested as being a modern fake. The analytical results clearly demonstrate that prior to the artificial patina process a sharp tool was used to create the letters. Fake patina was then applied, containing a mixture of iron-rich clay, some ancient charcoal, and chalk powder that was dissolved in hot water and then let over the freshly cut inscription. By using this method, the fake patina could not be distinguished from an authentic one by simple chemical analyses that only yielded the presence of alumina, silica, and calcium carbonate. However, with the combination of micromorphologic study and the examination of the isotopic ratios of oxygen and carbon within the calcite, it became clear that the patina covering the freshly cut letters was artificial [38]. Evidently, as had been noted in an earlier case, the previous scientists who examined the inscription did not confront the issue of authenticity directly. They seemed to assume it.

Discussion

It is only due to the limits of space that I do not go on with similar narratives. A hundred and thirty years after the exposure of the naïve and crude biblical forgeries of Moses Wilhelm Shapira, it seems that biblical archaeology did not learn the lesson and has completely forgotten its implications. Recently, I had the dubious pleasure of examining a seemingly endless line of fake biblical texts of various kinds. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of such forgeries referring especially to the time of the first Temple. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the disciplines of biblical history and archaeology have been contaminated to such an extent that no unprovenanced written source seems to be reliable anymore. To put it even more bluntly, the sciences of Hebrew epigraphy and philology are nothing but a fools' paradise.

The question arises whether we are playing here with science or with science fiction? Is it possible that, as in the popular movie The Matrix, we all live in a virtual world that was programmed for us by aliens and operated by a well-organized system of naïve scientists, media tycoons, and other messengers, who manipulate us so we can live calmly in the virtual reality that they created for us? Is it possible that over a century after Sir William Matthew Flinders-Petrie established the scientific methodology of biblical archaeology, the discipline is still controlled by dilatants and charlatans? As we all still hope that most of the scientists involved in this saga were motivated only by true scientific purposes, we must ask how some of them could be so naïve, ignore any sense of objectivity, and be trapped in the crude pitfalls set by the forgers? Considering the nature of the fakes in question, the answer to this question may lie in the domain of psychology. The forgeries discussed here are not merely fakes of ancient artifacts. They are relics, intended to manipulate the emotions of scientists and the public alike by using the attribution to biblical events [39]. These forgeries were intended to infect collectors, museums, scientists, and scholars with the Jerusalem Syndrome in order to boost their market price and attract public attention.

We biblical archaeologists must now decide whether we are ready to remain in this fools' paradise or fight back in order to bring science back into our discipline. For my grandfather, who was a very orthodox Jew, the question whether there was a Temple in Jerusalem or not was completely irrelevant to the depth and sincerity of his faith. He never needed a dubious ostracon, written in dodgy biblical Hebrew and coated by a layer of modern lime and wax, to make his belief stronger. I am confident that the discovery of the James ossuary has not served to bring more people into the belief in the historicity of the Gospels. Perhaps the opposite is true. But for those of us who care about the future and integrity of biblical archaeology and history, the Jerusalem syndrome in archaeology is a question of life and death — either we fight against it or we lose any trace of scientific dignity.

Yuval Goren; Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern CulturesTel-Aviv University, Israel ygoren@ccsg.tau.ac.il.

Notes



1. This essay is a revised and updated version of a page that was published in the Bible and Interpretation website: http://www.bibleinterp.com.



2. Bar-El, Y. Durst, R. Katz, G. Zislin, J. and Knobler, H.Y. Jerusalem Syndrome. The British Journal of Psychiatry 176(2000): 86-90.



3. Avigad, N. 1989. An Inscribed Ivory Pomegranate from the "House of the Lord," Qadmoniot 22/3-4(87-88):95-102 (Hebrew). Ibid, 1989. The Inscribed Pomegranate from the "House of the Lord," The Israel Museum Journal 8:7-16. Ibid, 1990. The Inscribed Pomegranate from the "House of the Lord," Biblical Archaeologist 53:157-166.



4. Lemaire, A. 1981. Une inscription paléo-hebraïque sur grenade en ivoire, Revue Biblique 88:236-23.



5. Lemaire, A. 1984. Probable Head of Priestly Scepter from Solomon's Temple Surfaces in Jerusalem, Biblical Archaeology Review 10/1:24-29.



6. Rollston, C.A. 2003. Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests, Maarav 10: 135-193.



7. Ahituv, S. Ayalon, A. Bar Matthews, M. Demsky, A. Dahari, U. Dayagi-Mendels, M. Goren, Y. Levine, N. 2005. Authenticity examination of the ivory pomegranate bearing a palaeo-Hebrew dedication inscription from the Israel Museum. Israel Exploration Journal in press.



8. Deutsch, R. and M. Heltzer. 1994. Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions. Tel Aviv.



9. Shanks, H. 1996. Fingerprint of Jeremiah's Scribe. Biblical Archaeology Review 22:36-38.



10. Avigad, N. and B. Sass. 1997. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, pp. 12-13, 175-6. Jerusalem.



11. Bordreuil, P. Israel, F. Pardee, D. Deux ostraca paléo-hébreux de la Collection Sh. Moussaieff. Semitica 46 (1996): 49-76. Bordreuil, P. Israel, F. Pardee, D. King's Command and Widow's Plea. Two New Hebrew Ostraca of the Biblical Period. Near Eastern Archaeology 61(1998): 2-13.



12. Shanks, H. Three Shekels for the Lord, ancient inscription records gift to Solomon's Temple. Biblical Archaeology Review November/December 1997:28-32. Shanks, H. The "Three Shekels" and "Widow's Plea" ostraca: real or fake? Biblical Archaeology Review May/June 2003:40-45.



13. Hornytzkyj, S. "Preliminary analysis report on six terracotta atrefacts." (1997) Unpublished report submitted by Microfocus Oy laboratory, Helsinki. (6 text pages + 8 figures and graphs).



14. Shanks 1997 (above, note 4).



15. Ephal, I. and Naveh, J. Remarks on the recently published Moussaieff ostraca. Israel Exploration Journal 48/3-4(1998): 269-273.



16. Rollston, above (note 6).



17. Land, H-T. and Feucht, G. Expertise, Sample No. PE 257-1, Sample No. PE 257-5. Undated and unpublished report submitted by Aventis Research & Technologies, Frankfurt. (15 text pages including figures and graphs).



18. Goren, Y., Bar-Matthews, M., Ayalon, A. and Schilman, B. 2005. Authenticity Examination of Two Iron Age Ostraca from the Mousaieff Collection. Israel Exploration Journal in press.



19. From reading the original report (above, note 5) it becomes evident that although modern materials were detected and the crystalline features of the calcite in the patina of the two ostraca differed from those of the reference group, the researcher still suggested that the patina of the former might be original. This was based on the presence of amorphous silica (actually from the opalline phytoliths within the grassy ash) and a siliceous layer coating the otherwise calcitic patina. However, such composition and microstructure may be created artificially by mixing commercial burnt lime with grass ash (made mostly of opalline phytoliths), due to the pozzuolanic reaction and the formation of calcium-silica gel. The micron-sized bipyramidal structure of the calcite crystals in the ostraca patina, as observed by SEM, indicates their crystallization from burnt lime. For a detailed discussion on these features in plaster products and further references see: Goren, Y. Goring-Morris, A. N., and Segal, I. The technology of skull modeling in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB): Regional variability, the relation of technology and iconography and their archaeological implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 28/7(2001):671-690.



20. Shanks 2003 (above, note 4).



21. V. Sussman, personal communication.



22. V. Sussman, personal communication.



23. Shanks, H. and Witherington III, B. The Brother of Jesus, the Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family. (2003). HarperCollins Publishers, New York, pp. 16-21.



24. Lemaire, A. Burial box of James the brother of Jesus, earliest archaeological evidence of Jesus found in Jerusalem. Biblical Archaeology Review November/December 2002: 24-33, 70. The ossuary is discussed in every volume of BAR that appeared between the publication of this article and the present (March/April 2005).



25. Shanks and Witherington III 2003 (above, note 17), pp. 16-21.



26. Altman, R. Official report on the James ossuary. Bible and Interpretation (2003): http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm



27. Cross, F.M. Biblical Archaeology Society (2003): http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbbreakingHSALFMC.html.



28. Ayalon, M. Bar-Matthews, Y. Goren. 2004. Authenticity examination of the inscription on the ossuary attributed to James, brother of Jesus. Journal of Archaeological Science 31/8: 1185-1189.



29. Lemaire, A. "Israel Antiquities Authority Report Deeply Flawed." Biblical Archaeology Society (2003): http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba2906f2.html . Keall, E. J. "New Tests Bolster Case for Authenticity." Biblical Archaeology Society (2003): .



30. Witherington III, B. "Bones of Contention, Why I Still Think the Bone Box is Likely to be Authentic." Christianity Today (2003): http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/010/2.42.html



31. Shragai, N. The Geological Survey: "The Jehoash Inscription" is Not a Forgery. Ha'aretzr, January 14, 2003 (Hebrew).



32. Shanks, H. Assessing the Jehoash inscription, Biblical Archaeology Review May/June 2003: 26-31.



33. Ilani, S. Rosenfeld, A. and Dvorachek, M. Archaeometry of a stone tablet with Hebrew inscription referring to repair of The House, Israel Geological Survey Current Research 13(2002): 109-116.



34. Shragai 2003 (above, note 27) quotes some of these fantastic conclusions regarding the golden gilded temple's walls burning over the Jehoash inscription (after being set in fire by Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard of Nabuchadnezzar, the King of Babylonia).



35. Shragai 2003 (above, note 27).



36. Cross, F.M. "Notes on the Forged Plaque Recording Repairs to the Temple." Israel Exploration Journal 53/1(2003): 119-122. Ephal, I. "The 'Jehoash Inscription': a forgery." Israel Exploration Journal 53/1(2003): 124-128.



37. Goren, Y. The authenticity of the Jehoash inscription: an alternative interpretation. Bible and Interpretation 2003: http://www.bibleinterp.com/presentations/index.htm. Goren, Y. An alternative interpretation of the stone tablet with ancient Hebrew inscription attributed to Jehoash, King of Judah. Bible and Interpretation 2003: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/alternative_interpretation.htm



38. Goren,Y., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., and Schilman, B. 2004. "Authenticity Examination of the Jehoash Inscription." Tel Aviv 31: 3-16.



39. Silberman N.,Goren Y. "Faking Biblical History, How Wishful Thinking and Technology Fooled Some Scholars — and Made Fools of Others." Archaeology September/October 2003: 20-29.

Citation: Yuval Goren, " The Jerusalem Syndrome in Biblical Archaeology," SBL Forum , n.p. [cited March 2005]. Online:http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=374