Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 27/05/2004 03:50, George Athas wrote:

> ...
>
> > 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.
>  

Well, in the Bible we do have David identified as MELEK ... `AL-BEYT 
YEHUDAH, 2 Sam 2:11. Not quite the same thing, I know, because of the 
`AL, but he is king of a BAYIT although here more a tribe than a 
dynasty. Similarly but without `AL, there is MALKEY BEYT-YISRAEL in 1 
Kings 20:31, cf. also Jer 2:26 and Ezk 43:7 where again BEYT-YISRAEL is 
the "possessor" of MELAKIM.

There is also MELEK BEYT-'EL at Joshua 12:16.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/