Novelty and Suspicion: Reconsidering "Hazon Gabriel"

• In Event: Second Temple Literature and the Bible

Abstract

In the wake of the latest forgery crisis—the near certainty that numerous recently revealed ostensible Dead Sea Scroll fragments are fakes—it is time to reconsider the authenticity of Hazon Gabriel. By many readings, the so-called “Dead Sea Scroll in Stone” is said to include a potpourri of cryptic catchphrases like “in three days,” “new covenant,” and “God of the chariots.” Yet scholars would be wise to exercise greater caution with this singular object, as indeed with all unprovenanced “discoveries” emerging from the antiquities markets.
If, as is often supposed or claimed, the object was found in either Israel or Jordan, then the object—if authentic—was looted. There can be no presumption of innocence; all we can do is guess which crime (forgery or looting) is likelier.
As for the document itself, it is equally important to emphasize that the composition is a pseudepigraph: “I am Gabriel,” the author asserts repeatedly and, it must be noted, falsely. Ancient or modern, the composition is deceitful.
When seen in the context of the recent scroll forgeries, suspicious similarities emerge as Årstein Justnes has recently noted. The inscribed stone emerged, mysteriously, from the markets at around the same time (c. 2002). It displays paleographic and linguistic inconsistencies, and a similarly disproportionate focus on biblical material (in comparison with scroll finds overall). Following a pattern seen also with the so-called Gospel of Jesus’ Wife, Hazon Gabriel, suspiciously, made its way to paleographers sympathetic to the markets and to scholars sympathetic to its distinctly messianic content.
In probing all this, scholars are not helped by the vagueness regarding the object’s purchase. The typically tolerated secrecy that obscures the find stories of objects likely looted serves also to prevent a comprehensive analysis for clues of forgery.
Whether forged or looted, Hazon Gabriel raises a number of areas of suspicion, and scholars would be wise to treat it with caution. No sound scholarly argument can put much weight on this object, and any references to it should acknowledge that authenticity is in doubt.

Author

• Jonathan Klawans, Boston University