THE TRIAL ON TRIAL
And
UNHOLY HOAXES
By Victor Sasson
A few months ago Oded Golan, the antiquities collector, contacted me via email. He
enquired whether I would be willing to testify in court as an expert witness regarding the
Jehoash inscription. Having given the request a little thought, I accepted the invitation.
Recently I came back from my trip to Jerusalem. A couple of biblical scholars found a
brief account of my experience interesting, and one of them even suggested making it
public. I thought this was a good idea, and my personal account developed into the length
it now has.
My testimony was given on the 26th of October of this year, 2008. My purpose
was to defend my reading of the text of the tablet, my own independent research, which I
undertook and completed in 2003. The study was published in Ugarit Forschungen 35 in
2004. I should mention that I had never heard of Mr. Oded Golan before 2003, and never
had any contact with him, nor met him, prior to the latter part of 2008, when he himself
contacted me for the first time.
Prior to my testimony on October 26, the judge in the case, A. Farkash, already
had a copy of my CV and a list of my publications, handed to him by the defence lawyer.
In addition to my doctoral thesis on the language of Hebrew inscriptions, completed in
1979, I have been publishing on Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions for about thirty years.
My independent research has been unsupported by any institution, even though over the
years I have applied for a couple of grants. Epigraphic research – especially of longer
texts - for me was, and still is, an irresistible, literary challenge; a literary as well as a
scholarly explorative work undertaken for the sheer excitement and love it affords me
personally. Not getting funding for my time-consuming research studies granted a sense
of freedom from the shackles of being beholden to institutions and individuals. I spoke
my mind, and my research has been readily accepted, over the years, by the most
influential scholarly journals in the field.
As a witness, I first gave a brief account of my scholarly background. The defence
lawyer, Mr. Lior Bringer, asked some relevant questions regarding the Jehoash tablet. I
answered his questions truthfully and to the best of my ability. Soon the prosecuting
lawyer, Mr. Dan Bahat - a tall, clever-looking fellow - took over, and the cross-
examination began. This man, clearly had read my Jehoash research and was intent on
treating me – or rather, mistreating me – as an accomplice to a crime. As an expert
witness for the defence, sworn to tell the truth in court, I was not at all prepared for the
tricky questions, ugly innuendoes, aggressive manner, and cheap legalistic maneuvers
that this prosecutor employed throughout my testimony. But he kept saying he was only
asking “simple” questions.
Mr. Bahat asked numerous questions regarding the text of the Jehoash tablet,
which I answered or tried to answer. Some of his questions were hair-splitting questions,
couched in language that sought to mislead or ensnare (this aspect of the cross
examination is often blurred or clouded in the printed court transcripts). Often they were
deliberately framed in a way difficult to grasp, especially as they were addressed to me in

---

a hostile manner. I did my best to keep cool and collected. When I mentioned further
textual evidence from the Book of Chronicles in support of the Jehoash inscription, he
objected saying that was not part of my 2003 published research article. I had no idea that
I was to stick to that research study. He said he was not prepared for the new piece of
evidence I was presenting to the court. I could of course have answered that I was not
fully prepared for whatever tricky questions he was asking. His objection to my new
evidence proved to me that the prosecution was not interested in the TRUTH, to which I
swore to tell in that court. The stance of the prosecutor was that the inscription was a
forgery (manufactured by the defendant who was sitting in the courtroom) and he was
going to prove this by hook or crook.
One of his desperate attempts at fabricating evidence to support his stance as a
prosecutor was to try to pin something on me regarding the Internet and my epigraphic
research, when in fact I have never ever published any research on the Internet. Every
scholarly article of mine was submitted to a reputable, refereed journal. Mr. Bahat had
full knowledge of that, yet he wanted to mention the word Internet for his own mean
purposes.
Having finished with his long and arduous questionings and futile attempts to
trivialize, confound and confuse, this prosecuting lawyer began reading my article
silently, while everyone, including the judge, waited for him to ask a question (these long
pauses in the proceedings are not mentioned in the published court transcripts). This went
on, I think, for something like fifteen minutes. At one point he asked a question that had
nothing to do with epigraphy, a question that I could not fathom at all. I turned to the
judge and said so. It’s possible the judge, too, could not understand the question, so he
asked the lawyer to repeat it. The purpose of the question was, no doubt, to confuse and
disorient. At one point I could not helped it but burst into laughter as I heard a thoroughly
ridiculous question that Mr. Bahat unashamedly put to me.
When I wanted to quote Ada Yardeni regarding what she had said about the
script used in the Jehoash tablet, Mr. Bahat objected. When I wanted to quote Joseph
Naveh about palaeography in a 1980 article written by him, the prosecutor objected
vehemently, and only with the forceful intervention of the judge I was allowed to do so
(in fact the quote from Naveh was already in my 2003 article).
Mr. Bahat, feeling frustrated by an honest and genuine expert on literary Hebrew
inscriptions, saw no other way but to turn to petty casuistry and quibbling in order to
score some points in court. Even though I had declared that I am an expert on the
language of inscriptions, the prosecutor kept harping on palaeography, attempting to
show that the mixed script of the Jehoash is a forgery. I pointed out that the Eqron
inscription has a mixed script, or a script that is not easy to identify, and yet it is
considered by all scholars to be genuine.
At this late juncture in my testimony, he turned to asking utterly nonsensical,
hairsplitting questions that drove the judge, at least once, if not twice, to shout angrily,
even furiously, at Mr. Bahat, telling him to stop it. The specific issue now was about
ostraca, an issue Bahat himself introduced, not I myself. Even though I said I had not
researched the specific ostraca Bahat mentioned (and ostraca had nothing to do with my
research on the Jehoash text), he kept pestering with questions. Apparently he thought he
had found a weakness which he could exploit. The anger displayed by the judge quite

---

surprised me (the judge’s display of anger is not mentioned in the court transcripts). Here
is my translation of what the judge shouted at Mr. Bahat:
Judge: Mr. Bahat, this is completely unnecessary! Your last comment was
completely unnecessary! Sir, don’t answer me! Your last comment was completely
unnecessary regarding an expert witness who is on the witness stand, giving testimony.
Excuse me! (Then turning to me) Professor Sasson, you wanted to complete your answer,
right? Please do so.
After more than two hours on the stand (in a confining corner of the relatively
small courtroom) - at times I had to sit on account of exasperating, convoluted or
irrelevant questions and the lack of fresh air - I was finally thanked by the judge. He
wished me a Happy New Year. The Jewish new year had just began.
As I have mentioned in my research article on the Jehoash, a governmental
appointed committee of sundry scholars can in no way adjudicate the authenticity of an
inscription. Public relations and comradeship would play a major part in the process – as
in fact it did. Indeed, our Akkadian scholar from the University of the Negev claimed that
the committee’s unanimous verdict of forgery was like the miracle of the Septuagint’s
translation of the Hebrew Bible, when every member of that committee submitted the
same translation! As far as I know, no member of the committee that was appointed in
2004 was a professional epigrapher, someone who has at least published several detailed
research studies of major inscriptions over a period of some years. Similarly, a court of
law is not the place to ascertain authenticity. A professional lawyer is not, and cannot
pretend to be, an epigrapher. The court is a place where the prosecuting lawyer has
already passed judgement, and his sole goal is to score legal points at all costs. To
establish the authenticity of a controversial epigraphic text may take years and solid,
published research by professional epigraphers. Throwing about ‘big’ names from ‘big’
universities in support of a forgery is not the way to go about it – this is in fact what Y.
Goren and N.A. Silberman did in their highly dramatic piece, ‘Faking Biblical History’ in
Archaeology magazine (56, no. 5, September-October, 2003). That approach is patently
false. It is cheap journalese, and it is misleading.
I must comment about the published court transcripts. They are available in
Hebrew only. Although I read, write, and speak Hebrew (as well as Arabic) I gave my
testimony in English, as all my research was done, written, and published in English. The
simultaneous interpreter that was assigned to me did, on the whole, a good job, (I had to
correct her once, so did Mr. Bahat, and so did the judge - regarding different matters). I
think that my testimony was also recorded on tape. And yet, the published transcripts in
Hebrew display misspellings of words and names, misunderstood or garbled sentences,
possibly omissions, and so forth. I find this incomprehensible.
Less than a week after I had given my testimony in Jerusalem, I learned that
Judge A. Farkash advised the Prosecution to reconsider their case or to drop it altogether.
I am tempted to think that my own testimony in the trial contributed something towards
that decision.

---

UNHOLY HOAXES FROM A NIMBLE JOURNALIST
Several weeks after my court testimony in Jerusalem, I chanced to read an
opinion piece entitled ‘Hoaxes from the Holy Land’ (Los Angles Times, Nov. 29, 08),
written by someone who knew how to rehash information that branded the Jehoash a
forgery. I had never heard of this Nina Burleigh before. She spoke of ‘nimble defence
attorneys’ who sought to prove (among other archaeological objects) the authenticity of
the Jehoash inscription. It struck me as insipid, shallow and thoroughly unreliable,
written by a third rate journalist who dared to venture into one of the most specialized
fields in Semitic Studies - Hebrew and Aramaic epigraphy. Nina Burleigh’s article is a
burlesque, paraded as a well-informed opinion piece. In fact she has no informed opinion
of her own to speak of. A professional journalist would present a balanced, unbiased
account of the controversy. This one pontificates, using abusive language, and passing
judgement on experts in a field she knows absolutely nothing. What this journalist gave
us was a piece of her own confused mind, mixed with misinformation and insults.
This is what she says about both the prosecution and the defence in the Jerusalem
trial: “So prosecutors …collected a long list of archaeologists and epigraphers…These
men and women …were no match for nimble, expensive attorneys …working for the
defence.” I have already dealt with the question of epigraphers in my scholarly research,
mentioned above. Let me just make a point here about the prosecutor and the defence
lawyer.
As my account of my own experience in the Jerusalem court has clearly shown, it
is the Prosecution that has been playing a nimble, tricky game, not the Defence. If one
cares to consult the testimony of that Akkadian scholar from the University of the Negev,
one will see that the defence lawyer, Mr. Bringer, urged his witness in the cross-
examination to say whatever he wished to say. This is in complete contrast to the
prosecutor’s stance, Mr. Bahat, who barred me from presenting whatever evidence I
wished to present in court. Readers interested in checking this point may wish to consult
my book King Jehoash and the Mystery of the Temple of Solomon Inscription, p. 122,
where there is a translation of the court transcript.
I happen to be an observant Jew, native to the Middle East, mindful of Jewish
customs and values. My views about the political situation in the Middle East are
generally known from whatever I have written and published on the subject. In brief, and
to focus on the issue at hand, I definitely oppose those who wish to destroy Muslim
shrines in order to re-build the Temple. Those who wish to do so are mostly East
European fanatic Jews who are foreign to the soil and culture of the Middle East. Further,
I have never been in the business of looking for biblical artifacts and inscriptions with the
aim of supporting the events narrated in the Hebrew Bible. I do not need any such proof
or support for my beliefs. Nor is it appropriate to mix science with politics, or with
beliefs.
Towards the end of her article, Burleigh unashamedly states: “Sober and serious
biblical scholars need to take steps to shield the public from their more ruthless
colleagues.” This is one of the most insipid and outrageous accusations she makes. I
assume she would include me personally as one of those ruthless colleagues for doubting
the Jehoash text to be a forgery. And she ends her mumbo-jumbo piece with: “The only
trouble is, in this field, disinterested individuals are the rarest finds of all.” What does she

---

know of this field of Semitic Epigraphy and of those very few who engage in it? If she is
searching for a “disinterested” professional epigrapher, let her look no further – here he
is. But she can expect nothing from me but contempt. She also has the gall to speak of
‘characters’, when she herself is shamelessly feeding misinformation and cheap gossip to
the general, unsuspecting public.
May God protect and shield us from dishonest and deceptive prosecutors, and
from third-rate, nimble, and abusive journalists who prostitute their pens in specialized
fields about which they know nothing!
29th December, 2008
Copyright © 2008 by Victor Sasson

---