Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi Ian!

I said in my post that I *would* address Garbini's article, but that I would 
do it in
the normal course of my research. At this point in time, I'm not critiquing 
Garbini,
so I notified the members that when I so, I will send a post with my 
suggestions. All
that is required is a little patience. I also mentioned my previous *cursory* 
thoughts
based on a simple glance, not a detailed reading of the article. This implies 
that I
believe Garbini's arguments to be refutable, but that I still need to analyse 
them in
more depth. Who knows - I may end up totally agreeing with the man!

However, just for you and your itching curiosity, here is another *cursory* 
appraisal
of Garbini's article. Out of the kindness of my own heart, I'm breaking my 
normal
course of research to bring you this bulletin snippet.  However, I won't 
answer any
queries on my suggestions just yet, because it is really me thinking at the 
keyboard -
no great effort has gone into these suggestions, so I won't even keep myself
accountable for them. Further analysis is what is required and I still 
haven't done
it.

So, here goes:

- I don't see why Garbini thinks the original inscription would have been 
made up of
separate pieces.
- Clear legibility of the inscription does not necessarily indicate forgery 
due to
lack of wear - but it is worth investigating.
- His dating of the archaeological context of Fragment A seems cursory. It is
something I need to examine further.
- He makes some assumptions as to the identity of the author, and about who 
broke it.
They are plausible, but far from concrete.
- His placement of the writing of the inscription in Ahab's reign is only one 
of many
possibilities. It is more probable, though, that the inscription was written 
after
Ahab's time, based on epigraphy. I'm yet to examine thoroughly the 
archaeological
context to determine a date. The language, or what we can guess from the 
scraps that
we have, allows a date well after Ahab.
- Garbini is correct in showing the epigraphic date range of the inscription 
to be
fairly large. However, this does not necessarily raise difficulties with the
archaeological context. It is precisely the large range of the dates we can 
ascribe to
the inscription that may well allow us to place it exactly where Garbini 
thinks it is
impossible to place.
- The script is not a 'later script' - the script has a wide range of dates 
possible.
In his methodology, Garbini also tries to place the script within the 
spectrum that we
already have. This is only half the job. Sometimes, we have to adjust and 
redefine the
inscrements of the spectrum a little according to the evidence given to us by 
a new
inscription.
- Again, there may be a methodological flaw in his reasoning that Aramaic has 
no
waw-consecutive and so the inscription is suspect. Again, perhaps we need to 
redefine
the spectrum. Perhaps we have to reappraise what we know of Aramaic and say 
that it
does use waw consecutives from time to time. This may well be what the Zakkur
inscription requires of us, too. However, we can also explain the apparent
waw-consecutives in other ways which do not require them to be interpreted as
waw-consecutives. Muraoka is the best one to consult on this. Personally, I'm 
still
not sure about the waw-consecutive question here. I need to examine it 
further.
- The imperfects used in a seemingly perfect sense are not as problematic as 
Garbini
sees them. They are odd, but definitely not foreign or unsustainable verbal 
forms.
- His suggestion about the adverbial use of QDM is interesting. I will have 
to follow
it up further, but I don't think we need to limit its meaning to simply a 
spatial
meaning "before" and not a temporal meaning. Nevertheless, I don't think we 
need to
understand QDM as requuring temporal significance in the text of the 
inscription.
- Garbini questions the contextual usage of the root QTL, and says the context
requires the root HRG. However, both roots end up with the same implication: 
dead
people. Also, the context of the inscription is so fragmentary that 
questioning the
use of QTL seems to be jumping to conclusions which we just can't make. But, 
a search
on the contextual usage of QTL and HRG needs to be made.
- Why must we kick out in rage at the suggestion that the language seems to 
be closer
to Biblical Hebrew than to Aramaic? Perhaps that's what the language was like!
However, I don't think the language is as close to Biblical Hebrew as Garbini 
sees it.
It also assumes that Hebrew was the base language for this style of writing. 
Maybe we
should be saying that it is close to Inscriptional Moabite? Why must 
everything
revolve around Hebrew?
- MLKY does not need to be understood as "My King" - could be "my reign".
- Why must this inscription conform to the tendencies of other inscriptions 
like Bar
Rakib? If, as Garbini seems to imply, a genuine inscription would not conform 
to
Hebrew norms, why must it conform to Samalian norms? I question his 
methodology here.
- He assumes that the "Aramaic sovereign" who wrote the inscription only came 
into
contact with those he mentions, once. On what basis?
- Garbini's treatment of the "no word divider" issuse in the word BYTDWD does 
not seem
to be very thorough - certainly not enough to hang a conclusion off. He also 
assumes
that this expression has to mean "House of David". This is the single biggest
conjecture of the inscription. Other interpretations have been forthcoming 
since
Garbini wrote his article.
- Garbini criticises Fragment A for not having enough specific information, 
and
therefore it must be suspect. I just do not think this is sound reasoning. If 
that's
the way the inscription broke, who are we to cry "forgery!" if the important 
bits are
no longer extant? Besides, we may be misinterpreting the inscription to start 
with.
Garbini assumes that the translation of Biran and Naveh is as good as Torah, 
and since
their translation has many problems it points to forgery. This doesn't seem 
very sound
to me.
- Garbini's suggestion that Tel Dan is based on Mesha is stretching the 
scholarship.
The only reason I see for thinking that one is a forgery based on the 
template of the
other, is if one thinks that separate inscriptions can have nothing in 
common, and if
one wants the inscription to be a forgery. The points of similarity that he 
picks on
may well be there because - well - maybe Mesha fought a war against Israel 
and maybe
so did the author of Tel Dan. It just might be possible that Israel, during 
its
history, fought more enemies than just Moab. And perhaps more people than 
Mesha laid
siege to cities.
- Another thing that worries me is that Garbini had not seen the fragments 
when he
wrote the article. I don't know if he has seen them since the article.
- To be fair to Garbini, 2 more fragments were found subsequent to his 
article which
he could not deal with. However, I think these two fragments put further pay 
to
Garbini's interpretations and conclusions.



There you go, Ian. Just a few cursory thoughts. Not by any means a 
comprehensive
critique.

--
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
---------------------------------------------------