Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net>]

Dave Washburn wrote:

> Jack wrote:
> >
> > 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)
>
> Agreed.  After reading the article that Ian graciously put on the web
> for us, I am more convinced than ever of its authenticity and think
> that the author of the article was trying a little too hard.  Re the
> dialect, obviously it's not standard Aramaic.  I suspect it may be a
> semitic dialect that we haven't seen before.  Re the preservation,
> well hey, if it only stood for a maximum of 10 years and then got
> buried (recycled?) there was no exposure to wind and water to
> erode the inscription.  That much should have been obvious.  And it
> seems to me that if any archaeologist competent enough to
> reproduce the script was going to forge such a thing, s/he could
> and would have done a much better job of imitating a dialect that
> we already knew!  The very fact that it has so many linguistic
> oddities (if that is what they are) argues for its authenticity, IMO.

Absolutely, Dave. We must understand that the epigraphy from this
time period is not extensive enough to give us a complete picture
of Aramaic dialects and regional orthographic praxis.  Had the
inscription been pristine and "textbook" I would have been
suspicious.  The tendency for monumental inscriptions to retain
even more archaic forms is also an issue so that Tel-Dan could
reflect an even older style.

I cannot help but notice that every significant or provocative
epigraph (including both durable and non-durable substrates)
discovered in the last several decades seem to automatically
elicit a "forgery!" cry from certain pockets of scholarship...
Clement's Letter to Theodore and the bytyhwh ostracon
comes to mind.

Obviously, diligence must be maintained in this area for the
real possibility of hoaxes but every proven hoax that I
have seen, such as some of the "palaeo-hebrew" inscriptions
found in the US, have been obvious, even to an interested
layman such as myself.

Jack
jkilmon AT historian.net

http://www.historian.net