Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

How predictable! Someone doesn't like the conclusions that would 
follow from certain evidence and so finds some excuse for declaring 
that evidence a forgery. Even Ian believes this professor enough to 
translate his article and put it on his web site; but at least he 
reminds us of George's web site also.

Let's assume for now that the Tel-Dan inscriptions are a forgery. What 
a careless forger! He made the inscription far too readable, a dead 
giveaway. Yet he seems to have been quite a scholar. Not only has he 
used believable letter shapes, close to those in various inscriptions 
of the correct period. He has also invented his own aberrant dialect 
of Aramaic (when it would have been so much easier to follow a 
standard model), which of course cannot be anything like the actual 
speech of the Arameans who conquered this area, although we have no 
data to say what this speech was really like. Yet also what a 
restrained forger! How he must have agonised about including only half 
the name of king ending in -yahu, rather than a whole name of a 
Biblical king, and to leave out the word break in BYTDWD, just in case 
someone might think a slightly less spoiled forgery too obvious!

:-^)

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Historical David (Tel-Dan)
Author:  mc2499 AT mclink.it at internet 
Date:    26/01/1999 23:29


If anyone is interested in an analysis of the Tel-Dan inscription written 
by Giovanni Garbini, Professor of Semitic Studies at the University of Rome 
"La Sapienza", I have a version translated at

        http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/tel_dan.htm

And while we are here, George Athas maintains the Tel Dan Inscription 
Website at:

        http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm


Ian
<snip>