Good point about the royal Israelite inscriptions. Are you saying that there were none, or that we have found none? The answer to that at this point in time must be that we don't know. It must be an argument from silence. I for one think that there probably were Israelite royal inscriptions, but since we don't have any in our domain we can't argue either for or against whether they did or did not refer to kings as 'king of [Dynastic Name]'.
In terms of epistemology and logic, if you are saying that I cannot make my point, then you cannot make your point either. There is no logically necessary link between proposing the likelihood of Israelite royal inscriptions and the use of the phraseology 'king of [Dynastic Name]' in those same inscriptions.
However, since the field of interest is not devoid of all royal inscriptions, I believe we can say something. I am not declaring the matter proven -- I am merely building a cumulative case. And there is far more evidence for saying that kings were not labelled as 'king of [Dynastic Name]' than there is to say that they were. Neighbouring cultures do not seem to have used that phraseology. Neither does it appear anywhere in the entire biblical corpus. Granted, the biblical corpus is not a royal inscription, but it is literary Hebrew.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.