Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Raymond de Hoop <rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>]

Ian,

thanks for your answer. I was wondering whether NPL's Monthy Python action
(intended or not intended) did finish the discussion at once. Just a few
answers to your response.
To be sure with regard to your position and mine; I do not want to force you
in a certain position and/or deny the possibility to others to hold a
different position. I just gave some arguments which are in my view
decesive, though they are not in the eyes of everybody.


>>I miss the logic of your argument. In case the inscription is old and
>>genuine, it would have some relevance (depending on its contents of course:
>>BYTDWD).

> <snip>
> One establishes some genuineness before any use of testimony. Would you do
> the sort of
> thing you advocate above in a court of law?
> 

I have the feeling we don not understand eachother. I wrote "In case the
inscription is old and genuine", so I take that as a condition before we
discuss the contents. In my view we (you and I) do agree at this point.
Further, because it is old this does not consequently imply that it is
important; I wrote: "depending on its contents of course". Some old text are
just important because of their philological aspects; some because of their
POSSIBLE (which has to be established/proven of course) relation to history;
etc. But even if the word BYTDWD does not refer to the house of David, the
inscription seems to have some importance for history: there is probably a
geographical entity which was governed by a king. So it still tells us
something about history --- albeit not the biblical history many would like
to hear.

So, yes I would do such a thing in a court of law.


>> Athiratu of the sea:    'aTrtym (without) KTU 1.4.i.22; iii.27; v.64
>>                         'aTrt.ym (with)   KTU 1.4.iii.29, 34
>> Almighty Ba`lu          'al'iynb`l (without) KTU 1.6.ii.21
>>                         'al'iyn.b`l (with)  KTU 1.6.i.64

> I was hoping for specific examples to counteract the southern Palestinian
> examples of Bethel and Beth-Shamash. That, I think, is what is necessary
> here, not merely perceived analogies.
 
The interpretation of the word formed from these six letters BYTDWD has to
be analysed on the basis of philology. So you have to follow the line of
arguing in this respect, which starts with the philological problems. Did
writers use the word divider between a construct state or in a fixed
expression, was it always used, etc. It is just because of the simple reason
that we have to establish whether we are dealing here with one word and in
that case probably a name, or would it be possible that we are dealing with
a regular expression, where BYT is just a noun and DWD might be a noun, or a
name (PN, DN). 

> <snip>
> Phoenician might, because of its closer geographical context, provide a more
> useful analogy. But how can "house of my father", a reference to something
> relatively literal, be analogous to a title like bytdwd? (It may be; I just
> don't see it.)

From a philological point of view the combination of BYTDWD in the sense of
BET-DOD or BET DAWID is a construct; similar is btaby in KAI 24.5, which
also indicates a house/dynasty and is less literal as you suppose.

> <snip>
>> So next to the fact that the
>> writers did not have to use the divider very precisely and could leave it
>> out if they liked,
> 
> Whoa! This is stating a case that hasn't been made in the *context*.

The cultural context and what we know of writing. But it has to be admitted
that we do not know everything, so you have to work with analogies.

>> Furthermore, it appears to me that there are no examples of a geographic
>> unit (state or town), which was called BYTDWD. So, this gives me some
>> reason to consider the interpretation "House of David" at least as likely
>> as (which is an understatement) the geographical interpretation.
> 
> This is called an argument from silence. However, the analogy with Bethel
> and Beth-Shamash suggests a temple. Wasn't Dumuzi/Adonis the beloved (for
> whom people wept)?

I agree. I have been thinking of mentioning it in the posting you're
responding to. We have to work with very little data. Excluding the other
position absolutely, would be a clear argument from silence. Now everybody
has to work with arguments from silence, even to hold an agnostic point of
view (which I do not consider as inferior, I just do not share it) with
regard to the early history of Israel and its kings.

>> This is based on the
>> fact that there are "some" (Biblical)-Hebrew texts that do use the
>> expression "House of David",
> 
> Perhaps you could supply some chronological precedence between bytdwd and
> the biblical "House of David"?
> 

Well, let's start a debate on the Deuteronomistic History hypothesis. Or
let's just conclude that we have a different opinion on it (I suppose we
have).

> I was listing alternatives to the view you have consistently
> set forth. As I don't think you have a way to show the merits of your
> position over the others, I can see no way that one can assume it as
> reflective of the TDI. So, I can't see that we can assume the significance
> of the inscription in arguments.

I consider my arguments as decisive, though I am aware they were certainly
not presented as a thoroughly scholarly exposition in every respect and
moreover that others consider some arguments as unsufficient.
Neverthless, I do not deny the right to others to share a different point of
view. But similarly to the fact that you bring in your arguments with regard
to other topics which are not shared by others, others may do also (I
thought).  

Finally, it would be rather boring when we always would add the following
line (or comparable) to our postings: "The following is my personal view,
which does not exclude the right of others to have a different opinion, etc.
etc."  :-)


Yours,
Raymond