One of the last sane

I have heard by unreliable means that archeologists in Israel have failed to find evidence that there ever was a king David who ruled Israel as described in the OT, but they have found evidence of a king David who was an obscure ruler of a small area of Israel.
Anybody got any links or solid information about this? Thanks in advance.

King Arthur

I think a David existed. Whether he was the Bible's David, I leave to you...

The Tel Dan inscription mentions the "House of David" (I don't agree with the website, I just use it because it has a great picture):

<a href="http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_telldan.html" target="_blank">http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_telldan.html</a>

Actually read it:
<a href="http://www.utexas.edu/courses/classicalarch/images2/9DanInscrText.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.utexas.edu/courses/classicalarch/images2/9DanInscrText.jpg</a>

One of the last sane

Sounds like a great guy.

Thanks for the links, King Arthur.

Kosh

O.o.L.o.t.S:

You want to read "The Bible Unearthed", where all that evidence is presented. If you search yahoo on that term,you'll find a review of the book.

Very good reading, and very convincing, and I've yet to see anyone actually refute the evidence.

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by King Arthur:
I think a David existed. Whether he was the Bible's David, I leave to you...

The Tel Dan inscription mentions the "House of David" (I don't agree with the website, I just use it because it has a great picture):

<a href="http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_telldan.html" target="_blank">http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_telldan.html</a>

The Tel Dan inscription is incomplete. it reads:

........k bytdwd

This was taken as melek byt.dwd and hopefully translated as Kin[g] of the House of David. The inscription does refer elsewhere to a "king of israel."

Unfortunately it is not that cut and dried. "byt" apparently could mean HOUSE or TEMPLE, as in Beth-el "Temple of El" or beyt Dagon (TEMPLE OF DAGON).

"dwd" is a very unusual name -- in fact in the bible, our hero is the only David. It means "Beloved" and is often used as an epithet or name of a god.

Note that even if you accept that the phrase refers to a dynasty of David, it may not refer to a particular person, any more than the HOUSE OF WINDSOR means it was founded by a king of windsor.

Further, as Thompson points out, the Bible does not use House in the same way the Brits do when they say HOUSE OF WINDSOR. Instead, HOUSE refers to the patronage networks of a particular person -- for example, the House of Jonathon is referred to, although he was no head of state.

Also, several scholars have argued that the inscriptions are forgeries. Here is one review I found; it looks scholarly at first run:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/5210/tel_dan.htm" target="_blank">Here</a>

In other words, it looks as though the media and believes were running ahead of the evidence.....as usual.

Hope this helps.

Vorkosigan

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

King Arthur

I think the stuff about the Tel Dan inscription being a forgery is stupid.

I don't know if anyone knows the names, but William Dever and Kyle McCarter both think it is highly unlikely to be a forgery (see BAR 1997 23:4). They are both mainstream scholars. In BAR, the ones who talk about the inscription being a forgery are what are called Biblical minimalists, Lemche and Davies... I think they're as bad and idiotic as the guys who think 7Q5 is from the book of Mark!

The Tel Dan inscription was found during an excavation with lots of people around to witness the thing being dug up.

As to the words. BYT *does* mean "house", so I have no idea what you are getting at Vorkosigan. The phrase (BYTDWD in the middle of the 5th line from the bottom) means "House of David".

It does not refer to David specifically, but to his descendants and relatives. Even the majority who do not think the inscription is not a forgery realize this. And since, in ancient semitic regions, "house of" referred to relatives, it would be strange if that original relative didn't exist.

In other words, no media or believers jumped the gun. This was and is still a major find for them. Whether any of us like it or not, there is *some* evidence behind the Bible.

Vorkosigan

I think the stuff about the Tel Dan inscription being a forgery is stupid.

Thanks for your opinion.

I don't know if anyone knows the names, but William Dever and Kyle McCarter both think it is highly unlikely to be a forgery (see BAR 1997 23:4). They are both mainstream scholars. In BAR, the ones who talk about the inscription being a forgery are what are called Biblical minimalists, Lemche and Davies...

The arguments are there.

I think they're as bad and idiotic as the guys who think 7Q5 is from the book of Mark!

Thanks for your opinion.

The Tel Dan inscription was found during an excavation with lots of people around to witness the thing being dug up.

"Forgery" implies that any time after its alleged date, it was created. For example, I believe Secret Mark is a forgery, but it could have been forged any time after the second century. I happen to own a 13th century porcelain bowl that is a 13th century forgery of a 13th century Imperial ware. Forgery is not exclusive to our own time.

Second, digging up things with witnesses is easily accomplished. I suggest you review the history of Japanese archaeology in the last decade. A single man planted hundreds of artifacts at sites all over Japan, and now it looks as if much of Japanese pre-history will be affected.

As to the words. BYT *does* mean "house", so I have no idea what you are getting at Vorkosigan. The phrase (BYTDWD in the middle of the 5th line from the bottom) means "House of David".

We've already agreed it means HOUSE. The issue is, what does "house" mean when used in the that period? What is dwd? It could also mean TEMPLE -- for example, the byt yhwh ostracon is usually translated as TEMPLE OF YHWH, and some scholars identify it with the Temple in Jerusalem, although that is disputed. It is clear that since byt could have either meaning, the idea that ....k bytdwd means KING OF THE HOUSE OF DWD is a stretch. It could well mean TEMPLE OF DAVID.

It does not refer to David specifically, but to his descendants and relatives. Even the majority who do not think the inscription is not a forgery realize this. And since, in ancient semitic regions, "house of" referred to relatives, it would be strange if that original relative didn't exist.

I do not agree at all. Who is the original founder of the House of Windsor? King Windsor the First? In many royal lines the first king, or first few kings, are mythical (see, for example, the Incas or the Japanese). It's a legitimizing strategy to give usurpers a securer presence in history.

Additionally, you are still stuck on the point that Thompson trashes; namely, that "house" refers to royal house in the dynastic sense, and not merely a specific man's patronage networks in their entirety, as in House of Jonathon. It is the second meaning that the Bible often focuses on, according to Thompson. Even if it said HOUSE OF DAVID -- only one possibility -- it would not mean that it refers to a dynastic entity.

Finally, you still haven't addressed Thompson's other point, which is that DWD is a common epithet for a god, meaning "beloved," and is not a name for a person at all.

In other words, no media or believers jumped the gun. This was and is still a major find for them. Whether any of us like it or not, there is *some* evidence behind the Bible.

ROFTL. There is certainly evidence behind the some of the Bible. Nobody disputes that. The issue is whether this fragment supports the conclusions that believers and the media would have. The answer is "no." They ran too far, with evidence they do not have. There is no way to demonstrate, without more evidence, that the fragment is really what the media and believers claim it is.

As the site above says:
"It's unlikely that it is by chance that the production of epigraphic forgeries has intensified in inverse proportion to the progressive decline of Albrightian optimism regarding the confirmation that facts provided by "biblical archaeology" bring to the text of the Bible."

Vorkosigan

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

King Arthur

Sorry, Vorkosigan, but no amount of wishing can make it so. It is ridiculous (yes, my opinion and obviously the opinion of the majority of scholars) to imply that it could be a forgery (not to mention rather convenient for those who are bent on trashing religion at any cost - even history, don't you think? I do.). I want truth in dealing with Christians and religion, not a bunch of spinmeisters who turn everything into nothing. The same dumb thing happens on the Christian side, like I said, with things like 7Q5! It's utter stupidity (yes, once again my opinion, and the opinion of the majority of scholars - whether you believe yourself some maverick with enough exerience to throw aside a scholarly consensus, I have no idea).

Finally, Vorkosigan, BYT *always* means house. The phrase you refer to BYT-ELOHIM means "House of God", not "Temple of God" though it obviously refers to the Temple. Temple is *not* a good translation. It was considered the "House" of God because that is where their God supposedly lived.

The Hebrew word DWD can possibly mean "beloved" (as you have indicated) or even "uncle/aunt" (as you do not seem to know). However, it seems to me that in one of those cases the phrase would have been BYTHDWD (Beth Ha Dod - House of the beloved or House of the Uncle), not BYTDWD (Beth Dawid - House of David) as it actually is.
Do you understand the silliness of the arguments your scholars are putting forward Vorkosigan, or are you so scared of religion having something to be happy about, that you tow the company line at all costs??

King Arthur

Oh, and another thing I forgot to mention...

Though your example of Windsor may sound like a good one to you, it is anachronistic to place it on the ancient semitic people. Geneaology was extrememly important to them and they would not have based their lineage on fiction. Who their father or ancestor was to them was very important. The *only* thing you might be able to say was that people who were not actually of the lineage took on another person's ancestral name which King Jehu seems to have done since in the Black Obelisk (which you probably also think is a forgery), he is called of the "House of Omri" (which is very similar, by the way, to the "House of David).

Also, as if that weren't enough, the stele mentions other characters from the Bible, such as Hadad and perhaps Ahab and Ahaziah!

Here is some better information on the inscription from a less biased source:

<a href="http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Bible_-_Part_2.asp" target="_blank">http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Bible_-_Part_2.asp</a>

See, Davies simply felt his whole thesis threatened by this new discovery. It would be very hard even for a person of integrity to realize that the backbone of his work had been broken. However, this is the predicament you get yourself into when you say that religious books like the Bible have no basis at all in fact.

I thought in coming to this website that there would be more open minded atheists who wanted to explore all options like I do and not just bash Christians and religion using any possible manipulation and spin on facts.

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

King Arthur

Oh yeah, baby! Here's a great scholarly presentation by James VanderKam! He is quite a bit more gentle with your fringe scholars' ideas than I am, Vorkosigan, but he shows that their arguments are not very good.

It's a long article, so you'll probably have to search through the page for "Tell Dan":

<a href="http://www.calvin.edu/fss/125conf/vanderka.htm" target="_blank">http://www.calvin.edu/fss/125conf/vanderka.htm</a>