|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: bytdwd : The Tel Dan Inscription | |||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6258 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Brian,
Who would you suggest best represents scholarly consensus on Tel Dan, what is that consensus, and to what extent, if at all, does it differ from that of Lemche? Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4979 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi CA,
I would say that, from what I have read, Kurt Knoll best represents the consensus. That consensus is as per my post on the other thread: .... that there is some agreement that the best interpretation of ‘bytdwd’ is ‘House of David’, and the most common interpretation of this is to accept that the ‘bytdwd’ is a reference to a political entity that was an enemy of the person that the inscription honours. Then, when secondary textual information is added from the Hebrew Bible, that political entity would be the chiefdom centred in Jerusalem in the 9th century BCE. This is the consensus, IMO. I would say that the only difference between Lemche and Noll is that Lemche admits that 'House of David' as a political entity is a possibility , whilst Noll says it is the best explanation. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4979 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi CA,
I need to alter my post regrading Lemche and the Tel dan Stele. It appears that Lemche does indeed believe that the Tel Dan inscription is genuine. I recieved this link via an email
Lemche In it Lemche states that I stick with what I said at Bar Ilan last December: That my hunch is that the Tel Dan inscription(s)is (are) genuine. This message on ANE is dated after the material that I read that was written by Lemche. It appears that his balanced approach to the subject has resulted in him moving from accepting the inscription as being possibily genuine to a position where he accepts 'House of David' as being the best interpretation. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6258 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
I need to alter my post regrading Lemche and the Tel dan Stele. It appears that Lemche does indeed believe that the Tel Dan inscription is genuine. I recieved this link via an email Specifically ...
quote:It appears, in fact, that your current view of Lemche's position is based on a 5 year old reference to a hunch, while your previous view of Lemche's most balance approach is, presumably, based on a prior position (hunch?). Meanwhile, your other exemplar of balanced approach, Frederick Cryer ... quote:So, is the "balanced approach" Lemche's hunch or Cryer's 'unequivocal' dismissal? As for ...
Another major problem would be the translation of ‘bytdwd’. I’m sure you know that in biblical references to the ‘House of David’ it is always written as two words ‘bet David’, as are contemporary names of dynasties in Syria and Mesopotamia (Bit Adina, Bit Gusi etc. ).
Do you truly consider this "a major problem", and would you maintain that this is the consensus view? Or was this "I'm sure you know ..." offering simply window dressing inserted for pedantic effect while cautioning us all to guard against maximalist enthusiasm? When ‘bytdwd’ is written in one word this is identical to how a place name would be written, Bethel, Bethlehem, Beth-Shean, so the ‘House of David’ could be a reference to a place known as ‘House of David’ just as Bethel is known as ‘House of God’. [edited to correct link and change "5 decade" to "5 year" - CA] [This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 01-31-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4979 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
It appears, in fact, that your current view of Lemche's position is based on a 5 decade old reference to a hunch, What 50 year old hunch?
while your previous view of Lemche's most balance approach is, presumably, based on a prior position (hunch?). Yes, I can only comment on what I have read, I cannot comment on every single article that has ever been written on the inscription.
Meanwhile, your other exemplar of balanced approach, Frederick Cryer ... Well your link isn’t working. Do you have any references to when Cryer changed his opinion from believing that the fragments were not forged to his current stance that they are all forged? The short quote from Athas you provided doesn’t provide adequate information about Cryer’s stance. Thanks. Also, people can have a balanced approach and arrive at a different conclusion, but it wil be interesting to see where Cryer has published his view that the inscriptions have been forged.
So, is the "balanced approach" Lemche's hunch or Cryer's 'unequivocal' dismissal? I have yet to see where Cryer has stated ’unequivocally’ that these have been forged, so I will reserve judgement until then.
Do you truly consider this "a major problem", Yes.
and would you maintain that this is the consensus view? No it isn’t the consensus view. Do I need to agree with the consensus view?
Or was this "I'm sure you know ..." offering simply window dressing inserted for pedantic effect while cautioning us all to guard against maximalist enthusiasm? It was inserted because I am sure you know. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jes Inactive Member |
According to "Old Testament Abstracts" Vol19 No.3 October 1996 ,E.A.Knauf,A.de Pury,Th.Romer "BaytDawid..[long French title]BN 72[1993]60-69 say"Biran and Naveh read this word as BAYTDAWID on philological grounds,though this reading can be disputed.DWD could be vocalized as DOD which is probably the name of a local deity."Summarizing another article by E.A.Knauf "Der Haus David...[long German title]BK 51 [1996] the abstactor says "Since the inscription dates from the end of the 9th century B.C.E.,the evolution of Judah from a tribal confederation into a "modern territorial nation"had not been completed at that time."BK and BN refer to 2 German periodicals.Is this any help to your discussion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4979 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi Jes, thanks for your reply.
We had actually began this discussion on another thread, and on that thread I had referred to this reading of the inscription.
Here Brian
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6258 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
What 50 year old hunch?
I was considering both "5 year" and "half decade" and blew it. I've corrected the error.
Well your link isn’t working.
I have likewise corrected the link, though it's simply a link to the book store.
Do you have any references to when Cryer changed his opinion from believing that the fragments were not forged to his current stance that they are all forged?
According to Athas:
quote:Our "balanced approach" Cryer seems to have achieved an early balance without taking the time to visually inspect the fragments, only to rebalance his views later and present them, as any good scholar would, as an unpublished presentation at a postgraduate seminar - lucky Copenhagen. And, while Cryer should, I suppose, be commended for actually looking at Fragments, this rebalanced approach is not without problems. Athas continues: quote:While I tend to prefer Finkelstein over Dever, it seems to me that the "most balanced" approach of the so-called minimalists too often resemble bias in search of justificaton. As for your earlier comment:
I suppose it is possible that it could be a reference to a Royal House of David, and that David’s Kingdom was hugely exaggerated, but I am still fence-sitting here as I think that there are many other problems that are related to the Stele. I would say then that it is a reasonable assumption to make the relation to a small kingdom (chiefdom?) but I really would be very cautious as well. Perhaps it may slide nicely into place if we can uncover more evidence, but at the moment I don’t take the Tel Dan Stele as ‘proof’ of the Davidic Kingdom of the Hebrew Bible. I fully agree. At the same time, I view the Tanakh as, among other things, an attempt at painting the story of a people. As such, it should be used, where applicable and with caution, to inform tentative conclusions in the absence of unequivocal proof. [This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 01-31-2004]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024