Biblical Hebrew Forum

["UUC" <unikom AT paco.net>]

Dear Liz,

Is Cyrus also coming from Edom in 63:1?
I'm not teasing you; your interpretation is really curious to me.


Best regards,

Vadim
>From gathas AT hotkey.net.au  Thu May 27 06:50:35 2004
Return-Path: <gathas AT hotkey.net.au>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from duckula.hotkey.net.au (duckula.hotkey.net.au [202.138.0.111])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F3CB20022
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 27 May 2004 06:50:33 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from Presario (242.d.002lg.syd.iprimus.net.au [210.50.99.242])
        by duckula.hotkey.net.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i4RAoUV20898;
        Thu, 27 May 2004 20:50:30 +1000
Message-ID: <007001c443d8$6b2d8a00$f26332d2@Presario>
From: "George Athas" <gathas AT hotkey.net.au>
To: <bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <20040526125932.1AFCF200A9 AT happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu>
        <Pine.SOL.4.58.0405271358060.1459@cantsl>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] question re: Tel Dan stela
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 20:50:15 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.4
Cc:
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 10:50:35 -0000

Hi Bill!

> It's this really just arriving approximately at the ``dominant theory'' by
> a rather circuitous route? If, for a moment, we accept your guess
> about it being a place name, and further accept your speculation on your
> guess that it is Jerusalem, ...

I'd say it's more than just a guess. I do give contextual evidence in the 
book for identifying "Bayt-Dawid" as Jerusalem. It's not a pure stab in the 
dark.


> ... don't we still end up at a reference to
> David, the Bible King?

More or less, yes. That's the case I'm arguing. We can't say we have found 
'proof' for David, but this is certainly good 'evidence' that builds what I 
think is a fairly solid case for an historical David. And if anything, I 
think it's even stronger evidence than the old 'dominant' theory because it's 
arguing that a town (not just a dynasty) was named after David, that suggests 
Jerusalem was a political centre even though archaeologically we know it was 
very small. It may cause us to rethink some of the theories of state 
formation. Indeed, in the book I argue that we haven't even read the biblical 
narratives properly.


> This type of argument doesn't hold water. The Bush family is not a dynasty
> (sorry for stating the obvious) whereas the Bible shows the Kings
> descended from David ruled Judah for over 400 years in an unbroken line.
> Assuming, for a moment, that is true, calling the King ``King of the House
> of David'' would appear a perfectly reasonable thing to do, even to 21st
> century people accustomed to electing their leaders.

I know what you mean, Bill. The problem is, however, that such terminology 
has no analogy in the Ancient Near East, either in inscriptions, archives, or 
even in the Bible. Nowhere is someone called the king of a dynasty -- they 
are always named as the king of a state. It's a slight difference, but a key 
difference. To argue that the Tel Dan Inscription identifies a 'king of the 
House of David' is to go against seemingly unanimous evidence. However, to 
identify someone as the king of a particular geographical entity has a lot of 
backing from the Ancient Near East. This means that if you opt for 
understanding the phrase as 'king of the House [dynasty] of David', you must 
be doing so on some other grounds. The only real grounds for doing this is to 
find the Davidic dynasty in the phrase. This is not the best methodology, and 
it's also unnecessary.

I hope that made sense.

Best regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Lecturer in Biblical Languages
Southern Cross College
Sydney, Australia