Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <gathas AT mail.usyd.edu.au>]

While the general concensus on the Tel Dan inscription is that it refers
to the House of David, there are still major problems to be dealt with.
The main problem is that no theory mooted thus far is watertight -
either the David theory, the deity DWD theory, the "kettle" theory, or
the village called Beitdawd theory. These problems lead to the concrete
conclusion that no concrete historical conclusion can be made on the
basis of the Tel Dan fragments. Of course we can theorise, and we'll
continue to do so, but we must acknowledge the difficulties within each
theory. The problem with Tel Dan is that it is too fragmentary to make
absolute statements from it. If God had chosen to give us one or two
extra letters in crucial places, then we may have been able to sort the
meaning out. However, we don't have all that much to go on, the present
arrangement of the fragments also has numerous problems, and the
archaeological context of the fragments leaves plenty of room for
speculation. Upon examining the inscription, I've concluded that it is
almost definitely genuine, but that we've also not looked at the
inscription carefully enough. Also, historical reconstructions based on
the Tel Dan fragments will only ever remain hypotheses so long as no
further fragments turn up. I hope Prof Biran and Co will be fortunate
enough to uncover more fragments in their excavations at Tel Dan.

My doctoral thesis is on the Tel Dan inscription itself, as well as its
impact on biblical studies. Hopefully, it will be finished by August
this year.

Regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
Dept of Semitic Studies,
University of Sydney
- Email: gathas AT mail.usyd.edu.au
---------------------------------------------------
Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at
http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm
---------------------------------------------------