Setting the Record Straight: What are we Making of the Tel Dan Inscription?
Contrary to the review by Victor Sasson, the author's treatment of the Tel Dan Inscription is not a new ‘Minimized’ reading of the fragments. A closer reading of his arguments reveals that he actually argues against the ‘Minimizers’. The Tel Dan Inscription provides us with good evidence for th...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2006
|
| In: |
Journal of Semitic studies
Year: 2006, Volume: 51, Issue: 2, Pages: 241-256 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | Contrary to the review by Victor Sasson, the author's treatment of the Tel Dan Inscription is not a new ‘Minimized’ reading of the fragments. A closer reading of his arguments reveals that he actually argues against the ‘Minimizers’. The Tel Dan Inscription provides us with good evidence for the historicity of David which is in line with biblical testimony, and suggests the reliability of the biblical record. Furthermore, we need to read the Bible more carefully to avoid false expectations about what we are looking for in archaeology. In relation to the inscription, context demands that the word דודתיב should not be understood as a dynastic label for Judah, but rather as a toponym for Jerusalem as a city-state. Sasson also misunderstands the nuances of the words קרא and לתקאו in the inscription. The author's own position is then summarized in ten points, including a reconstruction of the text. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1477-8556 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of Semitic studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1093/jss/fgl001 |