Tel Dan (Ian)

Raymond de Hoop rdehoop at keyaccess.nl
Tue Mar 6 09:54:31 EST 2001


Ian,

thanks for your answer. I was wondering whether NPL's Monthy Python action
(intended or not intended) did finish the discussion at once. Just a few
answers to your response.
To be sure with regard to your position and mine; I do not want to force you
in a certain position and/or deny the possibility to others to hold a
different position. I just gave some arguments which are in my view
decesive, though they are not in the eyes of everybody.


>>I miss the logic of your argument. In case the inscription is old and
>>genuine, it would have some relevance (depending on its contents of course:
>>BYTDWD).

> <snip>
> One establishes some genuineness before any use of testimony. Would you do
> the sort of
> thing you advocate above in a court of law?
> 

I have the feeling we don not understand eachother. I wrote "In case the
inscription is old and genuine", so I take that as a condition before we
discuss the contents. In my view we (you and I) do agree at this point.
Further, because it is old this does not consequently imply that it is
important; I wrote: "depending on its contents of course". Some old text are
just important because of their philological aspects; some because of their
POSSIBLE (which has to be established/proven of course) relation to history;
etc. But even if the word BYTDWD does not refer to the house of David, the
inscription seems to have some importance for history: there is probably a
geographical entity which was governed by a king. So it still tells us
something about history --- albeit not the biblical history many would like
to hear.

So, yes I would do such a thing in a court of law.


>> Athiratu of the sea:    'aTrtym (without) KTU 1.4.i.22; iii.27; v.64
>>                         'aTrt.ym (with)   KTU 1.4.iii.29, 34
>> Almighty Ba`lu          'al'iynb`l (without) KTU 1.6.ii.21
>>                         'al'iyn.b`l (with)  KTU 1.6.i.64

> I was hoping for specific examples to counteract the southern Palestinian
> examples of Bethel and Beth-Shamash. That, I think, is what is necessary
> here, not merely perceived analogies.
 
The interpretation of the word formed from these six letters BYTDWD has to
be analysed on the basis of philology. So you have to follow the line of
arguing in this respect, which starts with the philological problems. Did
writers use the word divider between a construct state or in a fixed
expression, was it always used, etc. It is just because of the simple reason
that we have to establish whether we are dealing here with one word and in
that case probably a name, or would it be possible that we are dealing with
a regular expression, where BYT is just a noun and DWD might be a noun, or a
name (PN, DN). 

> <snip>
> Phoenician might, because of its closer geographical context, provide a more
> useful analogy. But how can "house of my father", a reference to something
> relatively literal, be analogous to a title like bytdwd? (It may be; I just
> don't see it.)



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list