Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net>]

yochanan bitan wrote:

> > The Tel-Dan inscription
> > is a "maybe" but ambiguous on  orthographic grounds.
>
> Lemaire: JSOT 1998: 10
> "although there were many discussions about the syntagma BYTDWD, there is
> no epigraphical and historical problem about it. ... the mention of
> B(Y)TDWD by two enemies of Judah very probably reveals that it was part of
> the offical diplomatic language of this period."
>
> the problem isn't with the tel dan inscription, and calling it ambiguous is
> not to do it justice. lemaire's got it right, both tel dan and moav.

Well, it IS my opinion that the Tel-Dan inscription refers to David and
I think that the lack of a word divider in this construction....also noted
in others, like bytyhwh, was an orthographic trend at the time.  I was
attempting, however, not to be tendentious and to offer a more
"neutral" statement.  I also think the very inference of "forgery" is
absurd.  My 2 shekels plus 1  (g)

Jack