...
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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.