Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

George Athas has just finished a Ph.D on the Tel Dan inscription, so 
surely he, unlike you and many others including me, is in a position 
to judge. Since he does not accept the mention of David, he can hardly 
be accused of trying to push this as evidence for David, or as having 
been carried away by presuppositions. Cryer's work has not yet been 
published. So why can't you accept George's words concerning the Tel 
Dan fragments?: "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."

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Tel Dan & David
Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    03/01/2000 23:04


Thanks for your post, Lewis.

>This seems to me exactly backward.  Unless there is reason to suppose the 
>artifact a fraud, one should accept it as genuine.  That is contradicts 
>onre's current ideas is not a reason to suppose it fraudulent . None of the 
>examples are apposite here.

With the Tel Dan inscription I'm in no position to comment on any aspect of 
the scholarly analysis. I suspect its timing as extremely convenient for to 
assuage fundamentalist angst.

>The Turin Shroud was recognized for what it actually is by Church 
>authorities at the time it first appeared.
>
>Schliemann's discovery of "Priam's Treasure" was not a hoax - the articles 
>were genuine, only the attribution was a mistake - Schliemann was led astray 
>by his wish to find what he hoped.

From what I have read there is strong undercurrent in classical archaeology 
working on the notion that elements of the treasure came from various 
locations and constructed by Schliemann. He was not led astray.

>Similar thinking was partially
>responsible for the success of the Piltdown Man hoax 
>
>The Piltdown Man hoax was not discovered earlier because scientist were 
>denied access to the actual "finds" and instead had to be content with 
>studying reproductions.  As Stephen Jay Gould has noted, the hoax was 
>accepted because it played to the expectations of the times.[..]
>
>In the case of the Tel Dan inscription, since there is no evidence to 
>suggest a fraud, it seems to me that is those who refuse to accept its 
>genuineness that are being led astray by their presuppositions.

I've already mentioned two analyses on the inscription, one by Garbini 
(which is on my website
(http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/histreli.htm) regarding the 
philological aspects, the other by Cryer regarding the physical aspects of 
the inscription (yet to be published). As I said, I'm in no position to be 
able to judge, but then neither are most others who accept the thing. So, I 
see that there is evidence to suggest that it may be a fraud and that people 
who accept its genuineness have been carried away by their own 
presuppositions. Would you construct a future on the hoped for outcome of a 
legal trial or wait for the decision?

Presuming it is a genuine find, scholars can fight over its significance, 
for there has been a lot of theoretical energy put into it already by those 
who believe it is a genuine artifact and have come up with conflicting 
analyses.


Cheers,


Ian


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.e
du
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.