Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Historical David (Tel-Dan)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net>
  • To: yochanan bitan <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>
  • Cc: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Historical David (Tel-Dan)
  • Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:04:14 -0800




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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page