Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 02-01-2004, 09:03 PM

Oh but I think that the relevant people will be talking about the ossuary for a long time......

But as to Altman, her characterization of the ossuary, expressed at length on the Internet at a time when she had only seen (a?) photo(s) and not the ossuary itself, was based solely (at least at that time) on paleography ('detecting' two hands in the inscription and declaring that formal and cursive forms are never mixed). What is clear from the (preliminary) report of the Israel Antiquities Authority is that the members of the commission that looked at it were not convinced by the paleography that it was necessarily a forgery but that they went along (and tried to save face for their disciplines) by deeming the geochemical tests decisive and thereby being 'collegial' since what was wanted was a unanimous decision......

Personally, I think there's still a chance it, the inscription, may be genuine (genuine here meaning 'dating from the 1st to 2nd Centuries').....

Cheers!

Celsus · 02-02-2004, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
What specific problem do you have with this statement?

Hi Vork,

Why do you think the Tel Dan stele is inauthentic (aside from Lemaire's involvement)? Does this also mean you'd discredit any other work (at all) involving Lemaire?

Joel

MortalWombat · 02-02-2004, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Celsus
Why do you think the Tel Dan stele is inauthentic (aside from Lemaire's involvement)?

As early as 1994, University of Rome Professor of Semitic Studies Giovanni Garbini made his case for it being a forgery.

Celsus · 02-02-2004, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MortalWombat
As early as 1994, University of Rome Professor of Semitic Studies Giovanni Garbini made his case for it being a forgery.

I'm aware of the minimalist criticisms of Tel Dan. I'm also aware that most of them have been refuted or retracted and it is what I consider one of the bigger blunders that minimalists (Thomson, Davies, and Lemche (also c. 1994)) committed in their attempts to expound minimalism (something I'm extremely sympathetic to, incidentally). I want to know what Vork's got up his sleeve (if anything).

Joel

Toto · 02-02-2004, 11:11 AM

Rochelle Altman thinks that the tel dan inscription is authentic, and was used as a model for the ostracon:

note 27 of her Updates on the Ossuary of Ya'acob bar Yosef and the Temple Tablet

Quote:

Note: The beitdavid stele from Tel Dan was used as the model for the ostracon, not the reverse. ("First Things," editorial on the Ostracon by Hershel Shanks; BAR Nov.-Dec. 1997) The stele, however, has a provenance and does not exhibit evidence of fakery. The script is a coherent design and is in keeping with the script designs from that general area. Likewise, the triangular shape is correct in the Phoenician-Aramean hierarchies of shape. Incidentally, the use of a sherd for the ostracon is yet another typical error-of-ignorance made by this incompetent forger. The Temple Receipt is not the shape we can expect from a receipt issued by an official site. No official receipts at any time, past or present, are written on "postcards."

Jayhawker Soule · 02-02-2004, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Celsus
I want to know what Vork's got up his sleeve (if anything).Joel

Maybe he's deep into the Athas book.

[Modified Amazon link - MD]

Toto · 02-02-2004, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Maybe he's deep into the Athas book.

<looks at price and faints>

This b-hebrew post probably summarizes the thesis:

Quote:

The Tel Dan Inscription does not tell us that David really existed. It might hint at the possibility of a "David" person, but even if it does, it says nothing about that person. Anything you infer from the inscription is coloured by the biblical texts.

I've just submitted my PhD thesis on the TD inscription and I've concluded that the lexeme _bytdwd_ should not be translated "House of David", but as a toponym, "Bayt-Dawid." This might refer to a "David" figure in a round-about sort of way, but it's inconclusive. (BTW- I also concluded that Hazael could not possibly have been the author. As such, the inscription does not put a spin on Jehu's assassinations and coup. The arrangement of the fragments is also incorrect.)

Best regards,
George Athas
Dept of Semitic Studies,
University of Sydney

edited to add: there is a review of the book here

Vorkosigan · 02-02-2004, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Celsus
Hi Vork,

Why do you think the Tel Dan stele is inauthentic (aside from Lemaire's involvement)? Does this also mean you'd discredit any other work (at all) involving Lemaire?

Joel

No, I don't discredit all other work involving Lemaire. He had to establish a rep somehow. I believe that anything that involves anything "nationalist" or "historicist" involving Lemaire is automatically suspect. Or anything that got to him through either Golan or Moussaieff.

But spin has already gently corrected one of my erroneous views.

Basically, Tel Dan just falls under the rubric of "too good to be true" for me.

Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-01-2004, 09:03 PM	#31
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Oh but I think that the relevant people will be talking about the ossuary for a long time...... But as to Altman, her characterization of the ossuary, expressed at length on the Internet at a time when she had only seen (a?) photo(s) and not the ossuary itself, was based solely (at least at that time) on paleography ('detecting' two hands in the inscription and declaring that formal and cursive forms are never mixed). What is clear from the (preliminary) report of the Israel Antiquities Authority is that the members of the commission that looked at it were not convinced by the paleography that it was necessarily a forgery but that they went along (and tried to save face for their disciplines) by deeming the geochemical tests decisive and thereby being 'collegial' since what was wanted was a unanimous decision...... Personally, I think there's still a chance it, the inscription, may be genuine (genuine here meaning 'dating from the 1st to 2nd Centuries')..... Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.