Hi Brian,
quote:
Originally posted by Brian
How do we determine then which are factual and which are fictional references?
Of course, in the absence of corroborating extra-biblical sources, this determination cannot be made with any degree of certainty. The same can be said, however, for virtually any ancient source document. In every given case, certain assessments need be made concerning such things as, the apparent motivation and agenda of the author, the degree to which a statement falls within the parameters of normal "believability" and the internal consistency of the source itself.
quote:
Brian:
Can we really say that David must have been a real person because the tradition has lasted?
"Must have been?" Of course not. It is simply my current opinion that such strong traditions were quite likely based on actual core events as opposed to being strictly fabricated out of whole cloth.
quote:
Brian
Don’t you think that the reason that these traditions have lasted is to support the Israelites claim to the land?
Actually, I don't think that there would have been reason to invent such justification in this time period. In those days it was pretty much "might makes right". Also, such justification (to whatever extent it was needed) would have already been provided in the earlier accounts concerning Abraham.
quote:
Brian:
I also consider the Hebrew Bible as a source, and treat it the same way that I would treat any other ancient source, which means that the supernatural events need to be either explained by natural phenomenon or they need to be rejected.
No argument. Accounts of metaphysical intervention are the purview of religion; not archaeological reconstruction of history.
quote:
Brian:
Also, when referring to the Tel Dan inscription it is more accurate to talk about two inscriptions with the second part (which is two pieces) found a year after the first part and it is still hotly disputed whether these fragments all belong to the same inscription or not. (Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition, SPCK London 1998. pp38-44)
In addition to your above quote, you introduce several particulars regarding some of the difficulties surrounding the evaluation of the Tel Dan fragment. I won't address these issues point by point simply because there is nothing to disagree with regarding your statements.
Various reconstructions (I have read three) are indeed controversial and are based on information provided by the alleged additional fragments. Nevertheless, I do have an enlarged image of the stela and it is readily apparent that the entire "byt dwd" phrase exists clearly and in its entirety on the original fragment with the only area of ambiguity involving the term which immediately precedes this phrase.
In fact, the remarkable state of preservation itself has led some to consider that the inscription could be a forgery. And yet, it is difficult to imagine that this could be the case given the circumstances of the discovery.
Also, regardless of the uncertain paleographical considerations, pottery sherds found in proximity to the stela suggest the mid-ninth century date with an absolute terminus ad quem of 733 b.c. based on the Assyrian records of Tiglath-Pileser's campaigns in this area. Thus, if it is genuine, even a worst case dating of the stela would begin to introduce time constraints against a complete fabrication of such a tradition.
quote:
Brian:
. . . of course Beth David has to be taken as the dynastic name for Judah. . . . (T)his may simply be the repeating of a tradition that has become attached to the Judah monarchs.
Or it could mean that David was an actual eponymous ancestor. In an era in which succession records tended to be the rule rather than the exception, I would think that this is at least as likely an explanation.
quote:
Brian:
The actual genuineness of the Moabite Stele has never been seriously questioned . . . but Lemaire’s suggestion is universally rejected on a linguistic basis.
I know that the reference in question is in line 12 and reads ‘r’l dwdh , there have been various claims made for the ‘dwdh’ of the text. The most important observation is that ‘dwdh’ contains the same consonants as ‘dwd’, which is allegedly, according to Lemaire, a reference to ‘King David’. However, the ‘David’ in the Hebrew Bible is mostly used as a personal name but the ‘dwdh’ of the Moabite Stele cannot be a reference to David because personal suffixes are not used in personal names in Semitic writings. The ‘dwdh’ means ‘his David’ so this reference must be to a title, a place, or another item, but never a personal name.
To my understanding, this is not actually correct. It is line 31 in which Lemaire claims to have discovered the "house of David" inscription. Line 12 reads (from right to left):
saw hdwd lara ta mm baw bamlw mkl tyr rqh
Which is translated as:
. . . hqr (the town) tyr (belonged) l'kmc (to Kemosh) v'l'mab(and to Moab). vacb(and I brought) mcm (thence) at (direct object indicator) aral (either altar, or, Aral, i.e. Oriel) dwdh (of his beloved, or, his beloved) [some also say chieftain] va?s (and I dragged) . . .
. . . the town belonged to Kamosh and to Moab. And I brought thence the altar-hearth of his Beloved, and I dragged
Or possibly:
. . . the town belonged to Kemosh and to Moab. And I brought thence Aral (Oriel), his beloved (or possibly governor), and I dragged . . .
Line 31 is badly damaged and possibly reads (from right to left):
a? qw? b hb by nnrwjw xrah nax? ta t(rl yd
For which Lemaire has translated:
"[. . .] the sheep of the land. And the house of David dwelt in Horonen."
Don't ask me how though because I cannot see it. Apparently Lemaire has re-defined some of the characters.
W. F. Albright has: "[. . .] of the land. And as for Hauronen, there dwelt in it [. . . and]"
quote:
Brian:
The problem I see here for Bible believers is that if these people’s lives and events associated with them are greatly exaggerated then can we really trust the Bible as a book of ultimate truths?
Not in my opinion.
quote:
Brian:
In the Preface (p.11)Paolo Matthiae writes: It has been said that in the texts of the State Archives of mature Early Syrian Ebla there is proof of the historical accuracy of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and other cities of the plain, and a literary text with the story of the Flood. These are tales without foundation.
There are no more references to the five cities of the plain in the rest of (Paolo Matthiae's) book and I have been unable to find a translation of tablet 1860 in the library. I thought it would be in Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, but that book was out on loan. Can you tell me where your translation comes from and maybe I can track that down and examine the references in that?
I think that therein lies the problem. The Ebla tablets are a relatively new discovery and while they have only begun to be examined and/or translated, it is altogether too tempting for some to publish prematurely.
I have no solid source as proof that the plains cities actually exist in these tablets. The article that I read seemed credible because it stated that the cities were not only listed in the same order as given in the bible but also (and more importantly), they were phonetic transliterations of the biblical names. It simply seems extraordinary to me that there would be any margin for error of translation in an exactly ordered and phonetic rendering. Thus, I can imagine only two possibilities; they are there as advertised or they are not there at all.
I will simply withhold judgment until such time as I can obtain a facsimile and/or a transliteration of this tablet.
So far, however, I have not been able to find even a suitable translation. I have a copy of Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament" and it is invaluable as a reference. It really needs to be updated though; or perhaps, at least, supplemented. The Ebla tablets are not listed in the (3rd) edition I have since they are simply too recent.
quote:
Brian:
I think one of the clearest things to emerge out of the Ebla affair is that Bible inerrrantists do not understand archaeology. They do not seem to realise that even if the tablets do mention Sodom and Gomorrah, then it doesn’t follow that everything said about them in the Bible is true. It is the same with anything archaeological, it can only provide inferences, even if hundreds of tablets were found that mentioned King David, it doesn’t follow that everything about him in the Bible is then true, it only infers that they could be true.
Precisely so. As I said in a previous post; the fact that Rome exists in no way indicates that Romulus and Remus were raised by wolves.
Namaste'
Amlodhi
[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-17-2003]
. He's going to get bored of this if you make him work too much more.
The skeletons of plague-killed Israelites should clue archaeologists in.
™ Version 4.2