Pierre Boudreuil, Felice Israel and Dennis Pardee, “Deux Ostraca Paleo-Hebreux de la Collection Sh. Moussaieff,” Semitica 46 (1997), p. 49; and “King’s Command and Widow’s Plea,” Biblical Archaeologist 61:1 (March 1998), p. 2.
Israel Eph‘al and Joseph Naveh, “Remarks on the Recently Published Moussaieff Ostraca,” Israel Exploration Journal 48 (1998), p. 269.
One of the almost identical inscriptions (from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud) was published only in 1992, after the forgery—if it is a forgery—was thought to have been made, so a question arose as to how the forger could have known about it. Eph‘al and Naveh note, however, that Ze’ev Meshel, who published the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscription in 1992, gave numerous public lectures on this reading about ten years before he published it, and a forger of the three-shekel ostracon could have learned about it this way. If so, this only emphasizes how well informed the forger was.
Eph‘al and Naveh question the shape of some of the letters. Eph‘al and Naveh are critical of the scholars who originally published the three-shekel ostracon because they “analysed the script in a facile way.”
William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, act 3, scene 2.
Joseph Naveh in the preface to Nahman Avigad, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew Univ. Institute of Archaeology, 1997), p. 12.
Instances are cited in the article by Eph‘al and Naveh.