Tel Dan & David

Niels Peter Lemche npl at teol.ku.dk
Wed Jan 5 01:58:05 EST 2000


> Here you go again, reading my mind Peter. While people are irrationally
> taking the Tel Dan inscription for granted, if I bring people's attention
> to the fact that frauds have been known in the past, I'm accused of
> implying that it is a fraud. This is unjustifiable.
> 
> There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt about in your
> two
> dimentional (yes/no, right/wrong, true/false) world, Peter!
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Ian
> 
	[Niels Peter Lemche]  Ian, 
	Let the modern examples from Europa or N. America rest. It will be
enough to point at the Paraiba inscription case, a Phoenician inscription
found at the entrance to, I believe the Amazonas in the late 19th century
CE. As late as around 1970 it was the subject of a German dissertation by an
otherwise very balanced and knowing scholar, who however believed it to be
genuine. It is not, it is a mixture of 1. Kings and the Ezmunaser
inscription.

	Frauds have always been a problem, because they are sometimes very
skilfully done. One example of suggested fraud which was later vindicated,
is the famous inscription of Mesha.

	Fred Cryer once mentioned as some kind of criteria that all
important inscriptions found in the area includes some new information, and
argued that this is not the case of the Tel Dan inscription--not even a
single word which we cannot translate. He found this to constitute a
problem, although it must certainly be reckoned circumstantial evidence and
not proof of anything.

	NPL



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list