Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

        George Athas
> Ian, in my research, I've shown that the three fragments of the
> inscription do come from
> the same original stele. One of the major pieces of evidence is the way
> each letter has
> been carved. There is a universal trend in the manner of carving for every
> letter on each
> fragment. You can't pick it up in the photographs, but you certainly can
> when you see the
> fragments themselves. Given that the fragments were discovered at
> different points in time
> in different locations of the same general area (Area A of Tel Dan), it
> seems reasonable
> to suggest, on the basis of the manner of carving (for one), that the
> fragments are
> authentic. We'll have to wait for Fred Cryer to publish his arguments for
> forgery, too,
> before making a final judgement. However, I believe their authenticity can
> be proven
> beyond reasonable doubt even now.
> 
> The David issue is another issue.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> 
        I agree as far as the main argument is concerned. I cannot say that
it need to be the same stone, i.e. the same inscription, but could also
think of an inscription in two parts, e.g. on both sides of the city-gate.
There seems to be slight differences as far as the carving goes (that could
of course also be because of different positions on one and the same
inscription), but they are contemporary and I am sure that the basic
material, i.e. the stone itself, is the same on fragments A, B, and C. As to
authenticity, I understand now that the fotos I was referring to are indeed
legal, so they should be published. It's the job of Fred Cryer. I have tried
to press him, and philip Davies as well. If anybody wants to join, his email
is FC AT teol.ku.dk, at least for some weeks more.

        NPL