Hi Hermione,

I am curious as to why you bring this up again, since it has been discussed at length before.
Here:
<[www.hallofmaat.com];
and Here:
<[www.hallofmaat.com];

Is there some new evidence? What is known that at that time of discovery, the script of the text was unknown and therefore undecipherable until this last century (20th). It was not until that time the paleo Hebrew script was able to be deciphered. So in my mind, the only real question is who prior to 1880, the actual time of discovery, knew enough paleo Hebrew to carve the stone?

[economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu]
In 1996, Prof. James D. Tabor of the Dept. of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina - Charlotte, interviewed the late Professor Frank Hibben (1910-2002), a retired University of New Mexico archaeologist, "who is convinced that the inscription is ancient and thus authentic. He reports that he first saw the text in 1933. At the time it was covered with lichen and patination and was hardly visible. He was taken to the site by a guide who had seen it as a boy, back in the 1880s." (Tabor 1997) At present the inscription itself is badly chalked and scrubbed up. However, Moorehouse compares the surviving weathering on the inscription to that on a nearby modern graffito dating itself to 1930. He concludes that the Decalogue inscription is clearly many times older than this graffito, and that 500 to 2000 years would not be an unreasonable estimate of its age.

The inscription uses Greek tau, zeta, delta, eta, and kappa (reversed) in place of their Hebrew counterparts taw, zayin, daleth, heth, and caph, indicating a Greek influence, as well as a post-Alexandrian date, despite the archaic form of aleph used. The letters yodh, qoph, and the flat-bottomed shin have a distinctively Samaritan form, suggesting that the inscription may be Samaritan in origin. See Lidzbarski (1902), Purvis (1968).

There does not seem to be any new evidence in the article you posted.

Regards,
Jacob