Some small details.
1. The noun group /MLK Y#R)L/
appears as such, as far as a poor Hebraist like me
can discern, in the opening of line 8 (entirely in fragment A as far as
I can discern).
Then there is /MLK Y/ in line 3 of fragment B1,
and /R)L/ in the opening of line 4 (fragment A, as far as I
What is unsure is which word precedes /BYTDWD/ in the opening of line
9, where it is preceded by /K/.
The distance between this /BYTDWD/ and /MLK Y#R)L/ depends on the
size of the original text. According to Naveh's reconstruction the
would amount to ca 30 graphs. In any case the in-between is less than
which certainly cannot be regarded as a lot.
2. When one uses the words 'meticulous' and 'forgery' one has to keep in
mind that Naveh, on any account one of the three greatest paleographists
and epigraphists alive, and also an archeologist of reknown (it was him
identified Tel-muqanna as Eqron) is known to all as an extremely
meticulous scholar (beyond the limits of the possible, I would say). He
also is the integrity self.
He also has discovered many forgeries, more than anyone else,
I would say. It is certainly fair to say that if the Tel Dan
inscription were a forgery he would have discovered
3. As we all know, the historical content of the Tel Dan inscription is
and in any case not very complimentory to the national genius, so to
(contrast the Joash 'inscription,' about which Naveh seems to have
refused to give his opinion
after the first team of chemicists declared it original). So
nationalistic motifs are a priori
out. Since the inscription was not up for sale (and even could not be
up for sale, since Biran was head of the
SAntiquities department), nobody could have made money out of it
either. When there still were
only rumors about the find I asked a friendly archeologist back home
from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem about the possibility of a falsum, and he just had a good
laugh: in his
opinion the archeologists involved were not only far too honest for
that but also lacked the
necessary commercial sharpness.
Thus it seems less plausible to discard the lettering. How to
reconstruct the vacat is of course
4. Our innate mind set is one problem. Hypercorrection is another one,
like, forty years ago,
overactive anti-communistic politicians who had been very active CP
members twenty years before;
or like eating pork on Yom Kippur behind the shul.
5. No reason to turn Omri into Arabic. Maybe it just stands for (MR+DN.
On 5 Jul, 2007, at 21:35, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
> Still, there are leaps and there are leaps.
> "house of David" is really beyond dispute anymore,
> so making the connection to the biblical king is not
> that much of a stretch given the find-spot. Maybe
> if it had been found only a few miles more north.
> Tory Thorpe
> No it is not. If you look into Hagelia's survey, you will be
> Hagelia's study is not very original, and he is not a member of the
> Copenhagen school. It is a meticulous analysis of the inscription, and
> he presents what we know.
> He is also sure that the inscription is genuine. AS you probably know,
> some of us have problems with the chisel marks down the broken side!
> Let me in the interest of the public refer, not to Giovanni Garbini's
> original attack on the genuineness of the article but to Russell
> Gmirkin, "Tool Slippage and the Tel Dan Inscription," SJOT 16 (2002),
> pp. 293-302.
> Also my own "'House of David': The Tel Dan Inscription(s), in Thomas
> Thompson with Salma Jayyusi (eds.), Jerusalem in Ancient History and
> Tradition. London: Clark, 2003, pp. 46-67. Alas the fotos in the
> version are b-w. The Arab version has the color fotos.
> But, as I concluded in 2003, the arguments in favour of a forgery "are
> hardly strong enough to win over the person--scholar or layperson--who
> does not want to be convinced.
> If it is a forgery, the byt dvd is definitely the "house of David."
> Finally: Please remember that scholarly hypotheses are not decided by
> hand rising, although such a procedure will definitely support your
> Niels Peter Lemche
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]