Or even back to the Babylonian Exile.

Virgil was something of a Greek weeaboo -- his Aeneid was something of a ripoff of Homer's great epics, and it traced Rome back to a Trojan War hero.

Or it may have been invented separately. Rescue of the baby hero from some evil force is a common part of hero mythology, as Lord Raglan had recognized.

However, understanding such "history" can be helpful in understanding why the Bible has so much bogus "history" -- the writers of the Bible were actually rather typical of premodern "historians". I recall from somewhere that many premodern overall histories start with an era of active gods, then move to an era of legendary heroes, and then end with an era of ordinary people. And move from each era to the next without clear boundaries between eras.

It's also helpful in demonstrating that historians are not gaping-mindedly gullible about every ancient history but the Bible -- if anything, it tends to be the opposite.

I agree, and it's worth pointing out that the Bible is far from alone in that respect. Livy tells us that after Romulus's mysterious disappearance in a swamp, he briefly returned to Earth and appeared to an eminent senator, and assured that senator that the Gods intend for Rome to conquer the world.

Which seems rather grossly self-serving.

Possibly.  Certainly there are scholars (N.P. Lemche) who even feel that most if not all of the Hebrew Bible was composed in the Hellenistic Age in the Diaspora.  I can't say I don't find his study compelling.

I would never use "ripoff" when referring to classical literature.  Almost all classical literature was dependent on Homer in some way or another.  Apollonius of Rhodes' Argonautika for example, was heavily influenced by Homer.  Not to mention much of the "Cyclic Epics".  Even the New Testament Gospels and Acts is dependent on the Homeric poems.

You'd note that I said "I doubt the two are connected in any way."  =)  I am definitely okay with the trope being known and applied to separate stories with no intertextual connection.

No argument here. 

I don't recall making such a claim.  If I said something that came off that way, do know that was not my intention.  I do not feel that way in the least.

Certainly does.  Do not think I am only applying these criticisms to the Bible; rather I made a general statement because so much of "history" in antiquity was as I described.

Regards.

I ought to clarify what I had tried to say earlier. We sometimes get accused of being much more skeptical about the Bible than of other ancient history books, of being much more skeptical of accounts of Jesus Christ than about accounts of Julius Caesar, for instance.

But that seems like a case of projection to me -- they are projecting their gaping-mindedness about their favorite books on those they want to criticize.

Of course the problem here, as you well know, is that scholars tend not to believe the fictions attributed to the Caesars - Vespasian or to Aurelius, for example.  However they do accept many of the conclusions based in the Bible.   So of course focus will be on these accounts more heavily, because there will be more diverse interpretations.  Unfortunately American scholarship is large reactionary and evangelical and also have very large mouths.  This leaves those scholars and historians to do the cleanup work to correct these false assumptions, leading to volumes of publications on the subject that seem to lead nowhere.

Indeed.

Hi Rook,

Rook wrote: 

"There is, first of all, instances where it appears the Mesha and Tel Dan inscriptions are modern forgeries."

I am not aware of any leading archaeologists or epigraphers who currently believe the above statement to be true (notwithstanding several dissenting voices among the Copenhagen school). 

According to Amihai Mazar, one of the most respected excavators in the Levant and author of the standard text Archaeology and the Land of the Bible: "The Moabite Stone...carries the longest and most important Iron Age inscription found on either side of the Jordan River.  It commemorates the liberation of Moab from Israelite rule by King Mesha, and it contains invaluable information regarding historical events, building operations, and the geography of this kingdom.  Furthermore, the stele is invaluable in the study of Moabite script and dialect...".

William Dever, in his recent book, likewise defends the Tel Dan inscription against the occasional detractor when he notes that "...regarding the authenticity of the inscription, we now have published opinions by most of the world's leading epigraphers: the inscription means exactly what it says."

The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land is a typical example of a text that demonstrates the scholarly consensus revolving around the acceptance of the ancient artifacts under discussion.  It relates concerning the Tel Dan inscription that: "An important find has been the discovery of a 9th century B.C. fragmentary stele with an Aramaic inscription outside the city gate constructed by Ahab at Tel Dan.  This inscription mentions the 'King of Israel' and the 'House of David'."  The handbook also describes the various properties of the Mesha stele while confidently attesting to its authenticity.  

In my mind, at least, the evidence that the above stelae are forgeries is simply unconvincing and has been successfully refuted on many fronts by a plethora of scholars in relevant disciplines.  We can, of course, discuss the specifics of my assertion that the artifacts are genuine to avoid "appeal to authority" accusations.

Rook wrote:

"There is also some evidence that suggests both stelae resemble each other, as if the person who inscribed the Tel Dan inscriptions had the Mesha inscription in mind while carving them."

It is true that the stelae resemble one another in many ways.  Professor Andre Lemaire, for instance, has written the following:

In many ways the Mesha stela is similar to the stela from which the Tel Dan fragment came.  Both stelae are made of black basalt.  Both are (or were) approximately three feet high and two feet wide.  Both are written in an almost identical Semitic script--close to the script used by the contemporaneous Israelites.  Both date to the ninth century B.C.E.  Both were erected by enemies of Israel to commemorate their victory.  Even the languages are connected--both are Northwest Semitic, Moabite in the case of the Mesha stela...and Early Aramaic in the case of the Tel Dan stela.  Both also contain specific references to the 'King of Israel' (melech yisrael).  And, as I shall show, both also contain a specific reference to the 'House of David'.

Lemaire maintains, however, that the stelae display certain common characteristics due to the simple fact that they share a similar historical context and chronological framework. 

Rook wrote:

"Even if this was not the case, another problem presents Rendsburg and others who would so easily abuse the evidence so they could continue accepting these as such.  The obvious problem is that a person is not a “house”, and the reference to “house of David” is eerily similar to what we see when we read manuscripts talking about the “house of Yahweh”, specifically the reference to the Temple.  We see references like this elsewhere but only when discussing places of worship.  Lemche proposes several solutions if indeed this inscription were true.  One such suggestion, astutely put, is that there may be a link to the David euhemerized into Biblical history as once being a deity who was worshipped by the early Canaanites."

Kenneth Kitchen relates that "Byt-Dwd, 'the House of David'...corresponds exactly to the Assyrian Bit-Khumri = Byt-'mry, 'the House of Omri' ( = Israel).  In this way a kingdom could be named after a prominent founder of a dynasty.  Directly contrary to what some OT scholars claim, such mentions are strictly personal in almost all cases: they imply that a real man David and a real man Omri founded dynasties in the kingdoms concerned (Judah, Israel).  Just as a real man (A)gusi founded a dynasty, Bit-(A)gusi, in the kingdom of Arpad, and another individual, Adini, founded his line and kingdom, Bit Adini, at Til-Barsip, and so on; a dozen or more examples are known [e.g. Bit-Bakhiani; Bit-Daiukku; Bit-Humri; Bit-Khaluppi; Bit-Sha'alla; Bit-Yakhiru; and Bit-Zamini].  So 'House of ( = dynasty founded by the man) David' is the only acceptable translation and understanding of the phrase Byt-Dwd."

Rook wrote:  

"Another suggestion, equally plausible, is that the reference bytdwd could be a toponym of a vicinity; for example, the vicinity of Dan."

David Noel Freedman and Jeffrey C. Geoghegan have countered such a suggestion by drawing attention to the fact that "there is no place known as bytdwd in any text, tradition or inscription.  While it is possible that we have here the only reference to such a place, it is highly unlikely.  Furthermore, the 'House of David' is used over 20 times in the Bible as a reference to David's dynasty." 

Rook wrote:

"It could also be an object that represents a deity, such as an Asherah tree or Asherah wood mentioned in the Hebrew Bible."

Returning to Kenneth Kitchen: "'House of X' does mean a dynastic founder, all over the Near East, in the first half of the first millennium B.C.; it was an Aramean usage that passed into Assyrian nomenclature, and examples are common."  Anson Rainey similarly agrees that "there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the correctness of the reading 'House of David'."  He further asserts that "the combination (bytdwd) was obviously recognized by the scribe of the Dan inscription as an important proper name [that had come to possess geopolitical significance]."

Rook wrote: 

"Regardless of these possibilities, and even if the inscription was accurate and did refer to the eponymous state of Israel, it would not follow, therefore, that there was a historical state of Israel, nor even that there was a historical David; this is so for several reasons.  First, the inscription dates to the 9^th century BCE, at its earliest and most conservative, putting this inscription in line with the traditions of the Israelite people and the construction of their past.  In other words, this does not relay to us an actual historical witness, but rather—if assumed authentic—it can only be a witness to a tradition with no ties to history."

I disagree.  It remains a fact that 'House of X' almost always refers to an original dynastic founder and that this phrase is well-attested throughout the ANE.  The probability that a King David existed is extremely high.

Rook wrote: 

"Second, the references to “kingdom of Israel” and “house of David” are, as witnessed above, too interpretable to be of any real use.  This prequels the third reason, which is that there is an underlining assumption of a “unified” inscription, when in fact the evidence is not as clear when examining the three fragments combined."

I respectfully disagree with your assessment for the above reasons plus several others not yet mentioned.

I wouldn't say that Frederick Cryer is part of the Copenhagen School.  I would also not forget that Garbini teaches Semitic Philology, and is probably one of the more credentialed and schooled Philologists in the world.  I would not ignore what he has to say simply because you consider him to be a "dissenting voice" among the "Copenhagen School".

I do not doubt the last part at all.  I never suggested in the article that I believed the stele was forged, simply that there are reasons to suspect it is possible.  I think it is certainly more plausible that the inscription is authentic.  However, that does not mean it refers to what some archaeologists believe it does.

Although I respect his position, he is a twit. 

And here is why.  The inscription is not complete.  He doesn't know what it means because most of the inscription is not there.  There are three fragmentary pieces that have been assumed to fit together, although as I wrote in the article, it appears as if there are instances of modern chips in the stone.  Even if the chips are still ancient, that does not mean that the three pieces make up the bulk of the inscription, and it cannot be said with any certainty what the stele "means".  All that can be said is that it refers to a "house of Dwd" - and the stele does not correspond with the Biblical account of David. 

But it does not say anything more than that.  It does not suggest, for example, that the stele confirms the Biblical account, whish is what Rendsburg's position is (and Dever's).  It does not suggest that the inscription is evidence of a king David or a united Monarchy, again what Rendsburg's and Dever's positions are.  So I would not disagree with the AEotHL.  If authentic (and probably is) it is certainly a 9th Century BCE inscription that refers to these two things.  BUt that is all one can say about it.

I don't recall suggesting that the Mesha stele was not authentic.  I said the possibility exists that it is not.  Hershel Shanks, a leading archaeologist and scholar who runs BAR jumped all over the James Ossuary.  He was wrong.  People are wrong often.  That is why we do not make absolute statements.  People who claim things are 100% fact (like Christians) are often wrong.  This is a bit of an ad hoc, don't you think?

And again, it only discusses, briefly, the contents of the stele.  It does not suggest that the stele proves the Biblical account.  It does not suggest that this is evidence of a united monarchy, or a conquest period, or anything of the sort.  So once more I do not disagree.

To my knowledge there is not one publication dealing with the forgery issues brought up by Cryer, Lemche or Garbini.  If you know of one, please list it here with the appropriate biographical information so I can review it.

By all means, appeal.  I want to know who refuted the recent arguments proposed by Lemche, Cryer and Garbini.  I want to know what "various disciplines" you speak of.

I've no doubt that is a huge part of it.  And I do not disagree with Lemaire's overview.

Often so.  But also of a family line, not necessarily the founder.  It could also relate to a deity.  As I made note, there are instances where 'house' (house of Ashera) does not stand for a dynastic line but a worshiped god or goddess.  You neglected to discuss this.

That does not mean there was a historical David.  You are, in effect, using literature to verify literature.  Worse yet, you are building a case on a false dichotomy.  

You didn't address the point.  You dodged it by reasserting you initial assertion.   Asherah was not a dynastic founder.  As Dever (ironically) shows as well, a "house" can also refer to a house shrine.  Again, like the ones foundin the Hill Country of Asherah.  Literally, a House of Asherah.

You're welcome too.  I feel you disagree at the expense of the evidence.

Give me more examples.  Prove your assertion.  Prove to me that in every case (or even in most cases) this is so.  I already know it isn't.  I don't think you do.

Moreso, you disregard the *fact* that these are not historical monographs we're talking about.  They are *literary* texts, hymns, praises.  They are not written as recollections of historical memory.  They are written as literature.  See: Thomas L. Thompson, The Mythic Past; I would specifically recommend you read pages 8-15.

You can disagree all you want.  That does not make either of us wrong.  The evidence, however, does make one of us wrong.  As far as I can tell, you didn't refute a single statement in this post, and I agreed with much of it.  Best of luck.

Rook

Hello Rook,

Rook wrote: 

"I wouldn't say that Frederick Cryer is part of the Copenhagen School."

He certainly resided as a professor at the University of Copenhagen for many years.

Rook wrote:

"I would also not forget that Garbini teaches Semitic Philology, and is probably one of the more credentialed and schooled Philologists in the world."

Perhaps--but Garbini's analysis of the Tel Dan inscription apparently has not been received well by the majority of epigraphers. 

Rook wrote:

"I do not doubt the last part at all.  I never suggested in the article that I believed the stele was forged, simply that there are reasons to suspect it is possible.  I think it is certainly more plausible that the inscription is authentic."

I think that we are basically on the same page on this particular issue.  Although I am perhaps slightly less skeptical than yourself concerning the authenticity of the stelae, we nevertheless both seem to agree that it is highly probable that the artifacts are genuine.

Rook wrote:

"Although I respect [Dever's] position, he is a twit."

I personally find him honest and credible.  Each to his own!

Rook wrote: 

"And here is why.  The inscription is not complete.  He doesn't know what it means because most of the inscription is not there.  There are three fragmentary pieces that have been assumed to fit together, although as I wrote in the article, it appears as if there are instances of modern chips in the stone.  Even if the chips are still ancient, that does not mean that the three pieces make up the bulk of the inscription, and it cannot be said with any certainty what the stele "means".  All that can be said is that it refers to a "house of Dwd" - and the stele does not correspond with the Biblical account of David."

At the moment I am not concerned whether or not the stelae correspond to Biblical episodes.  I have a more narrow focus involving the distinct possibility that the phrase 'House of David' alludes to a dynasty founded by a real man (King David). 

Rook wrote:

"But it does not say anything more than that.  It does not suggest, for example, that the stele confirms the Biblical account, whish is what Rendsburg's position is (and Dever's).  It does not suggest that the inscription is evidence of a king David or a united Monarchy, again what Rendsburg's and Dever's positions are.  So I would not disagree with the AEotHL.  If authentic (and probably is) it is certainly a 9th Century BCE inscription that refers to these two things.  BUt that is all one can say about it."

I agree with you.

Rook wrote: 

"I don't recall suggesting that the Mesha stele was not authentic.  I said the possibility exists that it is not."

I understand your position on the matter.

Rook wrote: 

"Hershel Shanks, a leading archaeologist and scholar..."

Hershel Shanks is neither a scholar nor an archaeologist--but this is a minor point.  He certainly does have an in-depth understanding of the ANE after spending many years editing BAR and speaking with leading excavators.

Rook wrote:
"People are often wrong..."

Absolutely.

Rook wrote:

"To my knowledge there is not one publication dealing with the forgery issues brought up by Cryer, Lemche or Garbini.  If you know of one, please list it here with the appropriate biographical information so I can review it....By all means, appeal.  I want to know who refuted the recent arguments proposed by Lemche, Cryer and Garbini."

Why don't we briefly discuss the BAR issue in which Dever and McCarter face off with Thompson and Lemche (BAR: July/August 1997)?  Two additional scholars denounce and correct several of Lemche's assertions in the subsequent Nov/Dec issue.  Below are several relevant exchanges between the participants:

Shanks:  "What about the new Beth David [House of David] inscription from Tel Dan?

Lemche:  "The inscription was found at least in secondary use.  It was found near the gate.  I know this from firsthand evidence because I had a discussion last summer at a seminar at Megiddo with the person who found it.  He said, no doubt it had been there for some time, but he couldn't say for how long.  Whether it was five years, six years, 2,000 years, he couldn't say.  All the pictures of it printed in the Israel Exploration Journal are fakes."

NOTE: 

Lemche's statement angered Baruch A. Levine of the Israel Exploration Journal so much that he fired back in a letter to the editors at BAR:  "Serious charges have appeared in this journal questioning the authenticity of inscriptions recently found in the excavations at Tel Dan and Ekron and subsequently published in the Israel Exploration Journal (IEJ).  It has been alleged that accompanying photographs may have been fabricated by the contributing authors or that evidence from the field may have been doctored.

Every submission to IEJ is carefully studied by the editors, assisted by expert readers.  The editorial process is rigorous and exacting, and submissions that fail to meet IEJ's standards are rejected...We have great confidence in the personal integrity and professional competence of our contributors, and this applies in every respect to the finds they discover and record in controlled archaeological excavations, including inscriptions, which are assigned to skilled epigraphists for decipherment and study...."

David Ilan of the Nelson Glueck School of Archaeology also pummelled Lemche in a scathing letter to BAR:  "In the Lemche/Thompson--McCarter/Dever debate, Professor Lemche is quoted as saying that he had 'firsthand evidence because [he] had a discussion last summer at a seminar at Megiddo with the person who found [the Tel Dan inscription]...All the pictures of it printed in the Israel Exploration Journal are fakes.'  As the person to whom Professor Lemche spoke, please allow me to set the record straight...I never said that I discovered the stela.  I wasn't even in the field at the time.  As William Dever pointed out, our keen-eyed surveyor, Gila Cook, found it.  A brief account of the discovery was published by Avraham Biran and Joseph Naveh in the Israel Exploration Journal 43.  I reminded Lemche that a photograph was included in that article that showed the fragmentary stela as a building stone (i.e. in secondary use) in the foundations of an Iron Age Wall (Wall 5017) bordering the outer piazza.  Moreover, I indicated that other photos show the stela fragment in its secondary, in situ position at various stages of excavation, before the inscription was recognized, emphasizing how unlikely it was to have been planted.  Since neither Lemche, nor Thomas Thompson, nor Fred Cryer, nor anyone else can provide any evidence for forgery, and since they haven't investigated this possibility with any rigor, their claims are cavalier.  It makes one wonder about the rest of their scholarship."

 END OF NOTE

Dever:  "Niels Peter, you're too good a scholar to indulge in this sort of thing.  I have seen the published pictures of it in situ."

Lemche:  "You haven't seen it."

Dever:  "I have.  I was there shortly after it was found.  I've known Biran for 40 years.  The woman who found it, Gila Cook, I hired at Hebrew Union College.  I have handled the inscription.  I know what I'm talking about.  There's no way.  All of this was covered by debris until he started digging.  True, it was found in secondary use.  Nobody ever argued that it was in primary position.  It was re-used in the wall.  But there is no way in the world anybody could have dug down there, found that wall five years before Biran came along and planted it.  It's impossible."

Shanks:  "Let me interrupt a minute here.  We happen to have sitting here an expert paleographer and Biblical scholar, Kyle McCarter.  Can you respond to the charge that the Beth David inscription and the new Ekron inscriptions are both fakes?"

McCarter:  "...I think that the Tel Dan inscription is an extremely unlikely forgery.  That is, it has surprising features in it; it lacks the things a forgery would have, such as the name of the king who left it, or the mention of Tel Dan...Several people witnessed its discovery.  It wasn't found by one digger alone on the site at night.  It was called to the attention of others.  The circumstances of its discovery are not in favor of its being a forgery.  The problems that we have in reading it and understanding it also make it an unlikely forgery.  The subtlety of the forger would have to be extraordinarily great.  Then there's the question of the motivation.  I don't think there's much chance the Tel Dan inscription is a forgery."

Rook wrote:

"I've no doubt that is a huge part of it.  And I do not disagree with Lemaire's overview."

We agree.

Rook wrote:

"Often so.  But also of a family line, not necessarily the founder."

Perhaps--but certainly not in the context of the inscriptions.  I don't believe that any scholar is presently promoting a 'family line' explanation.

Rook wrote:

"It could also relate to a deity.  As I made note, there are instances where 'house' (house of Ashera) does not stand for a dynastic line but a worshiped god or goddess.  You neglected to discuss this."

Kitchen relates that "Dwd is neither the name (which [Thomas] Thompson admits) nor an epithet of a deity.  Others are beloved of deities (for which references are legion!), but male deities are not beloved of others, human or divine (only goddesses are beloved of their divine husbands in Egypt)."

Rook wrote:

"That does not mean there was a historical David.  You are, in effect, using literature to verify literature."

Since when did historians begin to reject corroborating evidence?  I have never heard of such a thing.  Refer to Halpern and McKenzie (recognized authorities on the Biblical David) for evidence that much of the 'core' of the Biblical narratives concerning the United Monarchy rest on solid ground.  Better yet, peruse A Biblical History of Israel by Provan, Long and Longman for, in my opinion, an even more rational assessment.

Rook wrote:

"You didn't address the point.  You dodged it by reasserting you initial assertion.   Asherah was not a dynastic founder.  As Dever (ironically) shows as well, a "house" can also refer to a house shrine.  Again, like the ones foundin the Hill Country of Asherah.  Literally, a House of Asherah."

Asherah is a well-known goddess familiar to all who research the ANE.  Yahweh is also associated with a 'house' multiple times--no big deal.  We need to read inscriptions in context to derive their meaning.

Rook wrote:

"Give me more examples.  Prove your assertion.  Prove to me that in every case (or even in most cases) this is so.  I already know it isn't.  I don't think you do."

Byt-Agusi; Byt-Adini; Byt-Bakhiani; Byt-Daiukku; Byt-Humri; Byt-Khaluppi; Byt-Khumri; Byt-Sha'alla; Byt-Yakhiru; Byt-Zamani and now Byt-Dwd.  See further explanations below.

Rook wrote:

"Moreso, you disregard the *fact* that these are not historical monographs we're talking about.  They are *literary* texts, hymns, praises.  They are not written as recollections of historical memory.  They are written as literature.  See: Thomas L. Thompson, The Mythic Past; I would specifically recommend you read pages 8-15."

In his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Kitchen spills much ink refuting Thompson's various claims in The Mythic Past.  In one specific example involving Byt-Humri, Kitchen relates that "all history writing by ancient kings used recognized literary adornments, but that is all--these are merely literary flourishes, and have no bearing whatsoever on the historical content of the text.  And that 'Byt-Humri belongs to the world of stories' is simply arrant nonsense.  It belongs to the strictly annalistic and historical terminology of Assyria, and is no more fairy story than Byt-everywhere else...."

Our closest parallel to Byt-Dwd would probably be Byt-Khumri or 'House of Omri'.  King Omri is mentioned in the Bible and the Mesha stela in his role as monarch and by the Assyrian kings Shalmaneser III and Tiglath-Pileser III as a dynastic founder.

Sure you do.  This automatically makes me suspicious of you.  Especially regarding his attacks on the Copenhagen School, libeling them as anti-Semitic or anti-Zionists.  This is not the move of a credible and honest person, but a desperate and emotional move by somebody who knows he's been beat.  There is nothing credible about this sort of behavior.

One implies the other.  Don't you see how?

You're right, he isn't an archaeologist.  That was an assumption on my part.  I would still consider him a scholar, he has more than published enough books on the subject of biblical Archaeology. 

I said a publication.  Not a 'pop-archeo' magazine.  Especially not one run by a leading 'maximalist' who admits a theological pastor to contribute to his archaeological journal every issue.  Sure it's a fun read, sometimes there are interesting things in there.  But you are not useful to me if you cannot provide me with an academic publication on the matter.  It would still be irrelevant, since Lemche published an article in the JSOTS 381/CIS 13 in 2003 exposing the issues in detail.  You are using a source that is at least 6 years out of date!  My point still stands that you have not presented me a source that has recently refuted the positions of Lemche, Cryer or Garbini.  I humbly await them.

Additionally, I do not believe that Thomas agrees with Lemche on the issue of reliability.  I'm almost certain he accepts it authenticity.

He may have fired back, but I do not see any instance where he said that they weren't fakes.  Just that great care is taken with each submission.  Obviously scholars can be fooled.  But again, I do not know enough about the incident to really comment in any entirety.

Again I reiterate that I do not know the situation well enough to make any adequate rebuttals.  I have contacted a few relevant parties to see what they have to say on the matter.

What was Lemche's reply?  Why are we not seeing the rest of the discussion?  

No, the context implies these are most certainly eponymous.

I beg to differ.  I'm going to assume you haven't read any of Thomas L. Thompson's books.  It appears you've read a lot of the published materials of neoAlbrightians, but not much else.  A bit one sided.

That is a bit of a non-sequitor.  You admit yourself that there are "houses" of Yahweh. It is not out of the question just because you say so.  Have you actually read the inscriptions?  Or are you just reading about them?

Tel Dan (Biran and Nevah translation):

1. [...   ...] and cut [...   ...]

2. [...] my father went up [against him when] he fought at [...]

3. And my father lay down, he went to his [anscestors]. And the king of I[s-]

4. rael entered previously in my father's land. [And] Hadad made me king.

5. And Hadad went in front of me, [and] I departed from [the] seven [...]

6. s of my kingdom, and I slew [seve]nty kin[gs], who harnessed thou[sands of cha-]

7. riots and thousands of horsemen. [I killed Jeho-ram son of [Ahab]

8. king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin-]

9. g of the House of David.  And I set [their towns into ruins and turned]

10. their land into [desolation...   ]

11. other [...   and Jehu ru-]

12. led over Is[rael and I laid]

13. seige upon [...   ]

Note:

Lemche notes that "it should be noted that King Ahab's name has been inserted into the inscription without much ado..." and "(about lines 9-10 - Ed.) While this translation might appear biblical and might be considered a plausible reconstruction  of the text, it is still no more than a reconstruction that restores more than 60 per cent of the extant inscription."  (Lemche, "House of Daivd", Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition, JSOTS 381/CIS 13, 2003).

He then goes on to show the very 'flimsical' nature of the translation using Jam Wim Wesselius' ('The First Royal Inscription from Ancient Israel: The Tel Dan Inscription Reconsidered', SJOT 13, 1999: 163-86)

End Note

Where do you see it say anything about "beloved"?  Bit of a dodge don't you think?  This is now the second time you have dodged this point.

When the evidence itself is unreliable or untrustworthy.  You should know that just because the stele is authentic would not make the words imprinted on it any more reliable.  Again, I have to ask, did you actually read the translation of the stele before I posted it here a second ago?  Do you really believe that is a historical account?  If so, we'll have to discuss this in further detail so I can show you where you err.

Read a few more books.

And?  I'm sorry, I don't see how this relates to you accepting the plausibility of this stele referring to historical events any more than Josephus' account of Alexander the Great marching on Jerusalem was a historical event.  Simply because the literature is carved into stone or clay instead of written on papyri does not change the fact that it is literature--unless you want to suggest that every tablet we have from Sumeria concerning their history and mythology should all be accepted into the historical time frame of actual events?  I didn't think so.

Something you are ignoring.  Again, another dodge, by the way.

I enjoy the fact that you continue to prove me correct in my assessment of your tactics.  I can see now why you enjoy Dever and consider him honest - especially since you utilize his "honest" moves.  This is another example where you have asserted without evidence.  Particularly in inserting "byt-humri" in there to somehow expand your list.  But again, you ignore the fact that we have clear evidence of "house" refering to things not of a founding dynastic leader, but of Gods and Goddesses.  If you want to play this game--that is, the game of trying to sneak things by me hoping I will not see them--you should know that I am wearing my patented "horse manure-detecting" goggles. 

I'm sorry, I just read a complaint, not an actual argument.  And how does Kitchen explain the fact that ancient Near Eastern peoples used "annalistic and historical terminology"--their own words, so to speak--to create and fabricate history all the time?  I can provide you lots of examples from the ANET where "annalistic and historical terminology" were used in all sorts of fabricated "histories".  Hell, the Bible uses "annalistic and historical terminology" to fabricate its own history!  This is a poor way to refute a position, Robert.  If you are going to refute something, make it more than an unfounded complaint.

And you claim I am not looking at the context!  Yet you have ignored the sheer literary power of the stele!  You keep segmenting the text (something I see more often in ancient Near Eastern scholarship since the rise of "minimalism&quot, focusing only on "byt Humri" but nothing else!  As if you've forgotten that this phrase lies in the middle of a whole story!  You cannot focus on "byt Humri" and ignore the fact that the stele was erected NOT as a historical document but as a praise to the god Chemosh.  In the same way the Merneptah stele is praise to Merneptah's victory over Palestine, Mesha's inscription is a hymn.  It is not a historical representation of fact. 

Do I need to post the translation of the Mesha Stele for you as well?

Hi Rook,

I have a very busy schedule so I'll post as much as I can at every available opportunity.

Rook wrote:

"Sure you do.  This automatically makes me suspicious of you.  Especially regarding his [Dever's] attacks on the Copenhagen School, libeling them as anti-Semitic or anti-Zionists.  This is not the move of a credible and honest person, but a desperate and emotional move by somebody who knows he's been beat.  There is nothing credible about this sort of behavior."

I know of no instance in which Dever attacked the Copenhagen school as anti-Semitic.  If you have proof of this allegation, then please post it.  I would certainly denounce such libel in a heartbeat.  I have read, however, that Dever and other scholars believe Keith Whitelam to harbor antagonistic tendencies toward Israel as a state.  I do not know enough about Whitelam to make an educated judgment one way or the other.  I therefore accuse him of nothing.

Rook wrote: 

"One implies the other.  Don't you see how?"

I agree that "context" is of the utmost importance when interpreting inscriptions.  I nevertheless will not lose sleep over whether or not Biblical accounts of various events correspond point by point and item by item with information written on stelae.  Different perspectives often exist in ancient literature.

Rook wrote:

"You're right, he isn't an archaeologist.  That was an assumption on my part.  I would still consider him a scholar, he has more than published enough books on the subject of biblical Archaeology."

In order not to confuse your readers I would suggest that Shanks be labeled only an amateur scholar (he carries no credentials relating to the ANE).  This is not a disparaging remark on my part since amateurs occasionally prove more astute than the professionals.

Rook wrote:

"I said a publication.  Not a 'pop-archeo' magazine.  Especially not one run by a leading 'maximalist' who admits a theological pastor to contribute to his archaeological journal every issue.  Sure it's a fun read, sometimes there are interesting things in there.  But you are not useful to me if you cannot provide me with an academic publication on the matter. 

BAR is a scholarly publication.  It is true that unfamiliar terms and concepts are introduced to the lay reader in more accessible language, but the scholars who contribute their articles to the magazine are the same individuals who write for other journals.  Furthermore, BAR is constantly quoted in academic texts related to archaeology and the ANE.  I therefore brought you four scholars who refuted the claims of Lemche that the Tel Dan Stela may be a forgery.   

It also does not matter whether an editor is a maximalist, medialist or minimalist as long as all contributing scholars are able to present their ideas without censorship. 

Rook wrote: 

"It would still be irrelevant, since Lemche published an article in the JSOTS 381/CIS 13 in 2003 exposing the issues in detail.  You are using a source that is at least 6 years out of date!"

I strongly doubt that Lemche has brought new information to the table in his 2003 article detailing how a forger was able to locate a wall under the ground, plant a fake stela as a support in this wall, and then subsequently hit the lottery by having an archaeologist uncover it a few years later.  If you possess this evidence:  Bring it on!

Rook wrote: 

"My point still stands that you have not presented me a source that has recently refuted the positions of Lemche, Cryer or Garbini.  I humbly await them."

I believe that the BAR article is enough to refute Lemche's suppositions.

Rook wrote:

 "Additionally, I do not believe that Thomas agrees with Lemche on the issue of reliability.  I'm almost certain he accepts it authenticity."

I believe that he may still have some lingering doubts.  If I remember correctly, he wrote to the Israel Museum at one time asking for certain tests to be done on the stele regarding its authenticity.  I could be mistaken.  Either way, I believe that he now assigns a rather high probability to the idea that the stone is genuine.

I contacted Niels Peter, who is a friend of mine.  I asked him to weigh in.  Here is what he says:

Here are my friends comments.  I have to agree that your arguments are based on things that happened 12 years ago, with a lot of incomplete information, and you have presented here rather dishonestly.  I hope this is not a trend that continues.

You apparently have not read his 2003 article.  When you have, we can discuss it.

I suggest you start with something simple since it has become clear to me that you are not getting your knowledge of what you are speaking of from books and articles. 

Start with this: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Minimalism.htm

Also this: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/copenhagen.htm

We'll continue this discussion when you have actually read your opposition, and perhaps even some of the books in your own corner.  I can't imagine you have based on how you have trotted along in this discussion so far.

No it is not.  It is a magazine published by a general editor, who you admit has no credentials, for the layman.  Does it contain articles by scholars?  Yes.  It also contains articles by theologians, pastors, and authors.  It presents, in a sometimes very interesting way, the archaeological happenings in a very layman perspective so your average person can grasp it.  If you can not tell the difference between BAR and the SBL, or the CIS, or the SJOTS, or the JOTS, you do not belong in this conversation.

I do agree with this.  This is also why I never label myself as anything more than a historian.

Please take your time to read what has to be read.  I've provided you with enough material not only in our discussion, but in the article above, for a thorough layout of the evidence.  If you haven't read these things, I don't think we can have a conversation that is useful or interesting.  It makes it even worse for you, I think, that I actually know these scholars, and converse with them, have had the honor of getting to know their positions better than you.  You cannot build a position based around ignorance.  When you understand that, you'll be the better for it.

Hi Rook,

Rook wrote (or rather Lemche): 

"Does it say anything about my opponents’ intellectual capacity. You may judge for yourself."

Nice way for a scholar to start off a debate--with an ad hominem attack.  Beautiful. 

Lemche wrote: 

"I don’t recall that I said that “all” photos in the IEJ were fakes."

Well, you did.  Unless, of course, another conspiracy is afoot. 

Rook wrote:

"Here are my friends comments.  I have to agree that your arguments are based on things that happened 12 years ago..."

Rook, you constantly quoted from Lemche's 1998 book in your article!

Rook wrote:

'You apparently have not read his 2003 article.  When you have, we can discuss it."

I will read his article only if it explains in detail how a forger managed to locate a buried wall, plant a fake stele in this wall and then enjoy a good laugh as an archaeologist dug it up.  By the way, I hope the explanation is worthy because I have exchanged quite a few friendly E-mails with Amihai Mazar in the past and I'm sure he would be fascinated to hear Lemche's hypothesis.  

In fact, Rook, just give me a taste of how Lemche deals with the above scenario and I will be happy to purchase the article. 

Rook wrote: 

We'll continue this discussion when you have actually read your opposition...

I have read much of the material of my "opposition" and found it wanting.

Rook wrote:

"No it is not.  It is a magazine published by a general editor, who you admit has no credentials, for the layman.  Does it contain articles by scholars?  Yes.  It also contains articles by theologians, pastors, and authors.  It presents, in a sometimes very interesting way, the archaeological happenings in a very layman perspective so your average person can grasp it.  If you can not tell the difference between BAR and the SBL, or the CIS, or the SJOTS, or the JOTS, you do not belong in this conversation."

I agree with you that BAR is written primarily for the lay person.  It does differ dramatically from SJOTS; JOTS; CIS etc. since these are strictly professional journals.  BAR is, nevertheless, a publication featuring articles by leading archaeologists and scholars.  It makes absolutely no difference whether a scholar chooses to express his professional opinions in BAR, SJOTS, snail mail, E-mail, in person, or in Penthouse magazine.  His position remains the same.  The validity or lack of validity of a scholar's assertions do not disappear depending on the location or forum he or she chooses.  I did not dismiss Lemche's letter to you as invalid simply because I read it over the Internet.

He had access to this dialog.  I do not think he was attacking you, but making an astute observation.  One I have made myself.  We'll see how true this is further down.

No, he did not.  He did not say that all photos in the IEJ were fakes.  The fact that you do not know the difference between "all" photos and the photo pertaining to "it" (particularly the inscription from text A, where it had been staged at its original location to take the photos after it was realized the piece had contained an inscription) tells me you have an ulterior motive other than discussing this civilly looking at the evidence.  Your incompetence in this matter is troubling.  I will note that you have not addressed anything worthwhile in several posts now.

Don't be ridiculous!  Now I know you're incompetent!  I quoted his BOOK published in 1998 in my article; Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition (1998)! His article was published Niels Peter Lemche, “‘House of David’: The Tel Dan Inscriptions”, Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition, JSOTS 381 (2003); See endnote 25.  Don't be incredulous and stop acting like you know something.  Clearly you don't.  Having to correct every mistake you've made in this discussion, although necessary for the readership, is more time consuming then I care to think about.  Get your shit straight. 

I'm sure Mazar already has.  I still don't think it would matter much.  I already know you won't read the article.  You're already assuming the articles contents (without knowing anything about Lemche's position except from what other twits have posted about it) and have displayed a knack for ignoring evidence throughout this whole dialog, stretching the evidence you seem partly aware of, and only giving half a story without a clue as to its whole.  Lemche's opinion of you is more than just astute.  If you can't tell, I'm losing my patience with you.

The fact that you continue to ad hoc Lemche and assume he even holds this position is irrational beyond all belief.  It also continues to belay your ignorance of his position.  Disgusting.  How did you really this this conversation was going to go?  Did you actually think you could pull the wool over my eyes by bullshitting your way through this?

Bullshit.  If you haven't read anything recent from these scholars from the last five years, you are clearly not reading the 'opposition'.  Stop this sort of dishonesty, before you continue to make yourself look foolish.

Richard Carrier's blog is written for the lay person by a professional historian with doctorate credentials.  I would not cite Richard Carrier's blog as an "academic source" like you did.  I actually understand the difference.

Sure it does.  One is for complaints and high school drama, the other is a place where you produce an actual solid, strong argument built on evidence.  I don't expect someone like you who has done little but complain throughout this discussion to understand the difference.

EDIT: ROBERT, PLEASE LEARN HOW TO USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION!

Hi Rook,

Rook wrote: 

"He had access to this dialog.  I do not think he was attacking you, but making an astute observation.  One I have made myself.  We'll see how true this is further down."

Well, I'm glad that it was not an ad hominem attack.  I had made precisely the same "astute" observation about yourself. 

Rook wrote: 

"No, he did not.  He did not say that all photos in the IEJ were fakes.  The fact that you do not know the difference between "all" photos and the photo pertaining to "it" (particularly the inscription from text A, where it had been staged at its original location to take the photos after it was realized the piece had contained an inscription) tells me you have an ulterior motive other than discussing this civilly looking at the evidence.  Your incompetence in this matter is troubling.  I will note that you have not addressed anything worthwhile in several posts now."

CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!  The context of our earlier conversation clearly involved only the Tel Dan Stele!  Lemche stated that "all" the photographs pertaining to the Tel Dan Stele in the Israel Exploration Journal were fake when he was interviewed by Shanks!  I had made this perfectly clear.  Here is the exact quote:  "All the pictures of it printed in the Israel Exploration Journal are fakes."

Rook wrote:

"Don't be ridiculous!  Now I know you're incompetent!  I quoted his BOOK published in 1998 in my article; Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition (1998)! His article was published Niels Peter Lemche, “‘House of David’: The Tel Dan Inscriptions”, Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition, JSOTS 381 (2003); See endnote 25.  Don't be incredulous and stop acting like you know something.  Clearly you don't.  Having to correct every mistake you've made in this discussion, although necessary for the readership, is more time consuming then I care to think about.  Get your shit straight."

Yes, Rook, I know that you quoted from both the book and the article.  Hello!  Anybody home?  If you can quote old material from Lemche, why can't I?  Hypocrite.

Rook wrote: 

"I'm sure Mazar already has.  I still don't think it would matter much.  I already know you won't read the article.  You're already assuming the articles contents (without knowing anything about Lemche's position except from what other twits have posted about it) and have displayed a knack for ignoring evidence throughout this whole dialog, stretching the evidence you seem partly aware of, and only giving half a story without a clue as to its whole.  Lemche's opinion of you is more than just astute.  If you can't tell, I'm losing my patience with you."

Whatever.  I'll be leaving this ridiculous web site after this post anyway.

Rook wrote: 

"The fact that you continue to ad hoc Lemche and assume he even holds this position is irrational beyond all belief.  It also continues to belay your ignorance of his position.  Disgusting.  How did you really this this conversation was going to go?  Did you actually think you could pull the wool over my eyes by bullshitting your way through this?"

You have lost your sanity.  Lemche changes his mind about practically everything once a week.

Rook wrote: 

"Bullshit.  If you haven't read anything recent from these scholars from the last five years, you are clearly not reading the 'opposition'.  Stop this sort of dishonesty, before you continue to make yourself look foolish."

After reading about conspiracy theories from minimalists for so many years I have stopped perusing their absurd writings.  Perhaps Lemche will publish his next book with the aid of little green men and the Loch Ness Monster.

Rook wrote: 

"Richard Carrier's blog is written for the lay person by a professional historian with doctorate credentials.  I would not cite Richard Carrier's blog as an "academic source" like you did.  I actually understand the difference."

Tell me, Rook, why does nearly every academic text that I own (over 200) quote BAR?  These books are written by leading scholars--not just maximalists.  Academicians are apparently free to quote BAR whether you recognize their right to do so or not. 

Rook wrote:

"Sure it does.  One is for complaints and high school drama, the other is a place where you produce an actual solid, strong argument built on evidence.  I don't expect someone like you who has done little but complain throughout this discussion to understand the difference."

You're beautiful when you're angry.

Rook wrote:

"EDIT: ROBERT, PLEASE LEARN HOW TO USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION!"

No thanks. 

Goodbye, Rook.

That isn't much of an insult from somebody who does not seem to read the full article or research the endnotes (let alone research the things he is discussing in the first place).  No skin off my back.  I didn't want to make you look too bad previously.  But I could have easily gone through your post and pulled out five ad hom attacks against people before I even posted the letter from NP. 

I can't understand why you would bring up things that clearly have nothing to do with Tel Dan, then.

You only posted part of the dialog.  You did not post all of it, so the context is uncertain.  It is also down right dishonest of you.  The more you keep digging this hole for yourself the more I'm going to keep exposing you.

I don't think you knew that.  I don't think you did because you ignorantly stated that I quoted from his 1998 "article".  I clearly did not cite any article of his from 1998.  The only thing from Lemche I cited in 1998 was his book.  If you were not smart enough to know the difference that does not hurt me at all.  It can only hurt you.  This comment from you does not do you any credit. The more you write the more you expose yourself.  Keep it up.

You say that as if it will be some severe blow to morale here.  We don't necessarily take kindly to dishonest, irrational bullshitters on this site.  That is sort of why we picked the name. 

Really?  That's funny since I know the man, and have known him for some time, and I can only recall him changing his mind about things he was never certain about to begin with.  Things that rationally minded, sane people change their minds about when more evidence is presented.  They don't whine (like you) about things they have been shown to be wrong or ignorant about. 

And you think I've lost my sanity?  I don't make exaggerated, extreme statements containing libel like you do.  I'm sorry to say, you need to brush up on more than just the minimalist positions.  You don't even seem to be comprehending things as basic as the difference between BAR and CIS.

They certainly are not citing them for the same reasons you are doing here.  If they were, I would have to question the nature of your "200+ academic texts".

Ad Hoc much?  Again your incompetency knows no bounds.  I never said you weren't free to quote BAR, nor did I say academia isn't free to.  What My problem is, is that you've been citing complaints and high school drama as if this somehow was the be-all-end-all smoking gun to Tel Dan.  It isn't.  Especially not a BAR article over 12 years old.  Not when there is more recent publications done in opposition to the statements made by other leading scholars, who publish actual arguments instead of whining like a spoilt child, which is pretty much all you've done here.

And you're foolish when you dodge, and try to cover up your dodge with sarcasm. 

Ciao.

...I don't get it.

Hey, Rob? Your whole argument here is a Red Herring. Why? Well, let's give you the full benefit of the doubt. So, now what? We have a legitimate inscription that proves... nothing at all.

Unless you have a compelling reason for anyone to think we should take whatever ancient writings we find at face value? (...And then we're in some big trouble, because there's a certain Egytian jackal whose histrocity would mean rather unpleasant things for our future...)