Help Aleteia continue its mission by making a tax-deductible donation. In this way, Aleteia's future will be yours as well.
*Your donation is tax deductible!
A reputedly ancient stone tablet that bears what may be the oldest extant inscription of the Ten Commandments recently garnered a fortune at Sotheby’s New York auction house. While experts are still arguing the history of the stone tablet, it commanded a price of $5.04 million, which is more than twice the expected high bid of around $2 million.
Aleteia previously reported that the tablet was first unearthed in 1913, at a site where religious buildings were known to have stood more than a millennium prior. The stone was unidentified, however, and was used as a paving stone for a private residence. With the inscriptions facing upwards, the stone was tread upon for decades, before it was identified as originating between 400 and 600 CE by a traveling scholar in 1943. (The original tablets with which Moses descended Mount Sinai originated between the 16th and 13th centuries BCE.)
At about two feet long and nearly as wide, the solid stone tablet weighs in at about 115 pounds. While it bears 20 lines of Paleo-Hebrew script that lists the 10 Commandments, it omits “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain.” In its place is the directive to worship on Mount Gerizim, a holy site specific to the Samaritans, but the reason for this alteration is unknown.
This curious omission, among other aspects, has led biblical scholar and epigrapher, Chris Rollston, to question the tablet’s authenticity. In a post for The Times of Israel, he questioned whether or not Sotheby’s had done its due diligence, suggesting that the possibility that the tablet is a forgery has not been ruled out. For example, he said that its use as a paving stone alone could explain why it seems to be worn by time.
He went on to point out that forgeries of such historical artifacts have been popular since well before the time when the tablet was discovered. He also took umbrage with how it was discovered, noting that it was not found on a scientific excavation, and sold on the antiquities market with nothing proving its authenticity but the seller’s story of origins. Despite these arguments, however, Rollston could not definitively call it a fake.
For Sotheby’s part, the auction house explained that it brought in scholars who had time to examine it, and it was not deemed fake. Furthermore the piece has appeared in scholarly journals since as far back as 1947, but no challenges to its authenticity have ever been made.
Whether it’s real or not, the fact that it sold for more than twice what was estimated shows that interest in historical religious items remains high on the collector’s market.
