Tel Dan stele: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 2:

{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2021}}

{{Infobox artifact

| name = Tel Dan Stele

| image = File:JRSLM 300116 Tel Dan Stele 01.jpg

| image2 =

| image_caption = Tel Dan Stele, [[Israel Museum]]. Highlighted in white: the sequence ''[[bet (letter)|B]] [[yodh|Y]] [[tav (letter)Taw|T]] [[dalet|D]] [[waw (letter)|W]] [[dalet|D]]''.

| material = [[Basalt]]

| size =

| writing = [[Old Aramaic]] ([[Phoenician alphabet]])

| created = 870–750 BCE

| discovered = 1993–94

| location = Armstrong Auditorium = ([[IsraelEdmond, MuseumOklahoma]])

| id =

}}

The '''Tel Dan Stele''' is a fragmentary [[stele]] containing aan [[Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions|CanaaniteAramaic inscription]] which dates to the 9th century BCE. It is notable for possibly being the most significant and perhaps theearliest onlyknown extra-biblical archaeological reference to the [[Davidic line|house of David]].<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=1993-08-14 |title=Stone Tablet Offers 1st Physical Evidence of Biblical King David : Archeology: Researchers say 13 lines of Aramaic script confirm the battle for Tel Dan recounted in the Bible, marking a victory by Asa of the House of David. |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-08-14-me-23862-story.html |access-date=2019-09-23 |website=Los Angeles Times |language=en-US}}</ref> The stele was discovered in 1993 in [[Dan (ancient city)|Tel-Dan]] by [[Gila Cook]], a member of an archaeological team led by [[Avraham Biran]]. Its pieces were used to construct an ancient stone wall that survived into modern times.<ref name=":4" /> The stele contains several lines of ancient [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]. The surviving inscription details that an individual killed [[Jehoram of Israel|Jehoram, King of Israel-Samaria]], the son of [[Ahab]], and [[Ahaziah of Judah]], a king of the house of David.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=http://cojs.org/tel_dan_stele-_c-_840_bce/|title=Tel Dan Stele|last=Hovee|first=Eric|date=2009-01-14|website=Center for Online Judaic Studies|language=en-US|access-date=2019-09-23}}</ref> The stele, which is ordinarily on display at the [[Israel Museum]],<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.english.imjnet.org.il/HTMLs/page_819.aspx?c0=14322&bsp=14162|title= Samuel and Saidye Bronfman Archaeology Wing|access-date=26 August 2011| publisher=The Israel Museum, Jerusalem|url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110812131801/http://www.english.imjnet.org.il/htmls/page_819.aspx?c0=14322&bsp=14162|archive-date=12 August 2011}}</ref> is currently (2024) on exhibition in the United States at Armstrong Auditorium in Edmond, Oklahoma.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Flurry |first=Gerald |title=King David Comes to America |url=https://armstronginstitute.org/1093-king-david-comes-to-america |access-date=2024-09-21 |website=ArmstrongInstitute.org |language=en}}</ref> It is known as [[Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften|KAI]] 310.

These writings corroborate passages from the [[Hebrew Bible]], as the [[Books_of_Kings#2_Kings|Second Book of Kings]] mentions that Jehoram is the son of an Israelite king, Ahab, by his [[Phoenicia]]n wife [[Jezebel]]. The likely candidate for having erected the stele, according to the Hebrew Bible, is [[Hazael]], king of [[Aram-Damascus]], whose language would have been [[Old Aramaic]]. He is mentioned in [[2 Kings 12]]:17-18 as having conquered Israel-Samaria but not Jerusalem:{{quote|At that time, King Hazael of Aram came up and attacked Gath and captured it; and Hazael proceeded to march on Jerusalem. Thereupon King Joash of Judah took all the objects that had been consecrated by his predecessors, Kings Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah of Judah, and by himself, and all the gold that there was in the treasuries of the Temple of GOD and in the royal palace, and he sent them to King Hazael of Aram, who then turned back from his march on Jerusalem.<ref>{{cite web |title=II Kings 12:18-19 |url=https://www.sefaria.org/II_Kings.12.18-19?lang=en |website=www.sefaria.org}}</ref>}}

The Tel Dan Stele was discovered in 1993 in [[Tel-Dan]] by Gila Cook, a member of an archaeological team led by [[Avraham Biran]]. Its pieces were used to construct an ancient stone wall that survived into modern times.<ref name=":4" /> The stele contains several lines of [[Aramaic]], closely related to [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] and historically a common language among [[Jews]]. The surviving inscription details that an individual killed [[Jehoram of Israel|Jehoram]] of [[Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)|Israel]], the son of [[Ahab]] and king of the house of David.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=http://cojs.org/tel_dan_stele-_c-_840_bce/|title=Tel Dan Stele|last=Hovee|first=Eric|date=2009-01-14|website=Center for Online Judaic Studies|language=en-US|access-date=2019-09-23}}</ref> These writings corroborate passages from the [[Bible]], as the [[Second Book of Kings]] mentions that [[Jehoram of Israel|Jehoram]], also Joram, is the son of an Israelite king, [[Ahab]], by his [[Phoenicia]]n wife, [[Jezebel]]. Applying a Biblical viewpoint to the inscription, the likely candidate for having erected the stele is [[Hazael]], an Aramean king (whose language would have thus been Aramaic) who is mentioned in the Second Book of Kings as having conquered the [[Land of Israel]], though he was unable to take [[Jerusalem]]. The stele is currently on display at the [[Israel Museum]],<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.english.imjnet.org.il/HTMLs/page_819.aspx?c0=14322&bsp=14162|title= Samuel and Saidye Bronfman Archaeology Wing|access-date=26 August 2011| publisher=The Israel Museum, Jerusalem|url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110812131801/http://www.english.imjnet.org.il/htmls/page_819.aspx?c0=14322&bsp=14162|archive-date=12 August 2011}}</ref> and is known as [[Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften|KAI]] 310.

==Discovery and description==

Fragment A of the stele was discovered in July 1993 by [[Gila Cook]] of [[Avraham Biran]]'s team who was studying [[Dan (ancient city)|Tel Dan]] in northern Israel. Fragments B1 and B2 were found in June 1994.{{sfn|Brooks|2005|p=2}} The stele was not excavated in its "[[Archaeological context|primary context]]", but in its "secondary use".<ref name=Demsky>Aaron Demsky (2007), [https://www.academia.edu/7692617/Reading_Northwest_Semitic_Inscriptions Reading Northwest Semitic Inscriptions], Near Eastern Archaeology 70/2. Quote: "The first thing to consider when examining an ancient inscription is whether it was discovered in context or not. It is obvious that a document purchased on the antiquities market is suspect. If it was found in an archeological site, one should note whether it was found in its primary context, as with the [[Ekron inscription|inscription of King Achish from Ekron]], or in secondary use, as with the Tel Dan inscription. Of course texts that were found in an archaeological site, but not in a secure archaeological context present certain problems of exact dating, as with the Gezer Calendar."</ref> The fragments were published by Biran and his colleague Joseph Naveh in 1993 and 1995.{{sfn|Brooks|2005|p=2}}

The fragments were published by Biran and his colleague Joseph Naveh in 1993 and 1995.{{sfn|Brooks|2005|p=2}}

=== Overview ===

The Tel Dan stele consists of several fragments making up part of a triumphal inscription in [[AramaicOld language|Aramaic]], left most probably by [[Hazael]]{{citation needed|date=December 2020}} of [[Aram-Damascus]],{{sfn|Mykytiuk|2022|pp=128–131}} an important regional figure in the late 9th&nbsp;century BCE. The unnamed king boasts of his victories over the [[Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)|king of Israel]] and his apparent ally<ref name="Athas">{{cite booksfn|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OPqpzmYBOxgC&q=alliance&pg=PA217|title=The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Introduction|last1=Athas|first1=George2003|datep=2006|publisher= A&C Black |isbn= 978-0-567-04043-5 |page= 217 |language= en |access-date= 1 April 2019}}</ref> the king of the [[Davidic line|"House of David"]] (''[[bet (letter){{lang-arc|b]] [[yodh𐤁𐤉𐤕𐤃𐤅𐤃|y]] [[tav (letter){{smallcaps|t]] [[dalet|d]] [[waw (letter)|w]] [[dalet|d]]''bytdwd}}}}). It is considered the earliest widely accepted reference to the name [[David]] as the founder of a [[Kingdom of Judah|Judahite]] polity outside of the [[Hebrew Bible]],{{sfn|Finkelstein|Mazar|Schmidt|2007|p=14}} though the earlier [[Mesha Stele]] contains several possible references with varying acceptance.

A minority of scholars havehas disputed the reference to David, due to the lack of a [[word divider]] between ''byt'' and ''dwd'', and other translations have been proposed. The Tel Dan stele is one of only four known extra-biblical inscriptions made during a roughly 400-year period (1200–800 BCE) containing the name "Israel", the others being the [[Merneptah Stele]], the [[Mesha Stele]], and the [[Kurkh MonolithMonoliths]].{{sfn|Lemche|1998|pp=46, 62|ps=: "No other inscription from Palestine, or from Transjordan in the Iron Age, has so far provided any specific reference to Israel. ... The name of Israel was found in only a very limited number of inscriptions, one from Egypt, another separated by at least 250 years from the first, in Transjordan. A third reference is found in the stele from Tel Dan – if it is genuine, a question not yet settled. The Assyrian and Mesopotamian sources only once mentioned a king of Israel, Ahab, in a spurious rendering of the name".}}<ref>{{Cite book |last=Maeir |first=Aren M. |year=2013 |chapter=Israel and Judah |title=The Encyclopedia of Ancient History |place=New York |publisher=Blackwell |chapter-url=https://www.academia.edu/2501888 |pages=3523–27 |quote=The earliest certain mention of the ethnonym Israel occurs in a victory inscription of the Egyptian king MERENPTAH, his well-known "Israel Stela" (ca. 1210 BCE); recently, a possible earlier reference has been identified in a text from the reign of Rameses II (see RAMESES I–XI). Thereafter, no reference to either Judah or Israel appears until the ninth century. The pharaoh Sheshonq I (biblical Shishak; see SHESHONQ I–VI) mentions neither entity by name in the inscription recording his campaign in the southern Levant during the late tenth century. In the ninth century, Israelite kings, and possibly a Judaean king, are mentioned in several sources: the Aramaean stele from Tel Dan, inscriptions of Shalmaneser III of Assyria, and the stela of Mesha of Moab. From the early eighth century onward, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah are both mentioned somewhat regularly in Assyrian and subsequently Babylonian sources, and from this point on there is relatively good agreement between the biblical accounts on the one hand and the archaeological evidence and extra-biblical texts on the other.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fleming|first=Daniel E.| date=1998-01-01|title=Mari and the Possibilities of Biblical Memory |journal=Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale| volume=92 |issue=1 |pages=41–78|jstor=23282083|quote= The Assyrian royal annals, along with the Mesha and Dan inscriptions, show a thriving northern state called Israël in the mid—9th century, and the continuity of settlement back to the early Iron Age suggests that the establishment of a sedentary identity should be associated with this population, whatever their origin. In the mid—14th century, the Amarna letters mention no Israël, nor any of the biblical tribes, while the Merneptah stele places someone called Israël in hill-country Palestine toward the end of the Late Bronze Age. The language and material culture of emergent Israël show strong local continuity, in contrast to the distinctly foreign character of early Philistine material culture.}}</ref>

The Tel Dan inscription generated considerable debate and a flurry of articles, debating its age, authorship, and authenticity;{{sfn|Lemche|1998|p=41|ps=: "The inscription is kept in a kind of "pidgin" Aramaic, sometimes looking more like a kind of mixed language in which Aramaic and Phoenician linguistic elements are jumbled together, in its phraseology nevertheless closely resembling especially the [[Mesha Stele|Mesha inscription]] and the Aramaic [[Stele of Zakkur|Zakkur inscription]] from Aphis near Aleppo. The narrow links between the Tel Dan inscription and these two inscriptions are of a kind that has persuaded at least one major specialist into believing that the inscription is a forgery. This cannot be left out of consideration in advance, because some of the circumstances surrounding its discovery may speak against its being genuine. Other examples of forgeries of this kind are well known, and clever forgers have cheated even respectable scholars into accepting something that is obviously false".}} however, the stele is generally accepted by scholars as genuine and a reference to the [[Davidic line|Househouse of David]].<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kcVmBAEo5rcC&pg=PA333|title=Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty|last=Grabbe|first=Lester L.|date=2007-04-28|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing USA|isbn=978-0-567-25171-8|language=en|quote=The Tel Dan inscription generated a good deal of debate and a flurry of articles when it first appeared, but it is now widely regarded (a) as genuine and (b) as referring to the Davidic dynasty and the Aramaic kingdom of Damascus.}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uGzRCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61|title=Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction|last=Cline|first=Eric H.|date=2009-09-28|publisher=Oxford University Press| isbn= 978-0-19-971162-8| language=en|quote=Today, after much further discussion in academic journals, it is accepted by most archaeologists that the inscription is not only genuine but that the reference is indeed to the House of David, thus representing the first allusion found anywhere outside the Bible to the biblical David.}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{harvnb|Mykytiuk|2004|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=eprY1Qd0veAC&pg=PA113 113]}}. "Some unfounded accusations of forgery have had little or no effect on the scholarly acceptance of this inscription as genuine."</ref>

===Text===

[[File:Tel dan inscription.png|thumbnail|upright=1.35|left|The Tel Dan Stele: Fragment A is to the right, Fragments B1 and B2 to the left]]

The following is the transcription using Hebrew letters provided by Biran and Naveh. Dots separate words (as in the original), empty square brackets indicate damaged/missing text, and text inside square brackets is reconstructed by Biran and Naveh:

{{Rtl-para|arc|

1. {{Script/Phoenician |[ 𐤀]𐤌𐤓.𐤏[ ]𐤅𐤂𐤆𐤓[ ]}}<br>

1. {{Script/Hebrew|[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;א]מר.ע[ &nbsp;&nbsp;]וגזר[ ]}}<br>

2. {{Script/HebrewPhoenician |[&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ---].אבי𐤀𐤁𐤉.יסק𐤉𐤎𐤒[.עלוה𐤏𐤋𐤅𐤄.בה𐤁𐤄]תלחמה𐤕𐤋𐤇𐤌𐤄.בא𐤁𐤀[ ]}}<br>

3. {{Script/Phoenician |𐤅𐤉𐤔𐤊𐤁.𐤀𐤁𐤉.𐤉𐤄𐤊.𐤀𐤋[.𐤀𐤁𐤄𐤅]𐤄.𐤅𐤉𐤏𐤋.𐤌𐤋𐤊𐤉[ 𐤉𐤔]}}<br>

3. {{Script/Hebrew|וישכב.אבי.יהך.אל[.אבהו]ה.ויעל.מלכי[ יש]}}<br>

4. {{Script/HebrewPhoenician |ראל𐤓𐤀𐤋.קדם𐤒𐤃𐤌.בארק𐤁𐤀𐤓𐤒.אבי𐤀𐤁𐤉[.ו𐤅]המלך𐤄𐤌𐤋𐤊.הדד𐤄𐤃𐤃[.]א𐤀[יתי𐤉𐤕𐤉]}}<br>

5. {{Script/HebrewPhoenician |אנה𐤀𐤍𐤄.ויהך𐤅𐤉𐤄𐤊.הדד𐤄𐤃𐤃.קדמי𐤒𐤃𐤌𐤉[.ו𐤅]אפק𐤀𐤐𐤒.מן𐤌𐤍.שבע𐤔𐤁𐤏[ת𐤕---]}}<br>

6. {{Script/HebrewPhoenician |י𐤉.מלכי𐤌𐤋𐤊𐤉.ואקתל𐤅𐤀𐤒𐤕𐤋.מל𐤌𐤋[כן𐤊𐤍.שב𐤔𐤁]ען𐤏𐤍.אסרי𐤀𐤎𐤓𐤉.א𐤀[לפי𐤋𐤐𐤉.ר𐤓]}}<br>

7. {{Script/HebrewPhoenician |כב𐤊𐤁.ואלפי𐤅𐤀𐤋𐤐𐤉.פרש𐤐𐤓𐤔.[קתלת𐤒𐤕𐤋𐤕.אית𐤀𐤉𐤕.יהו𐤉𐤄𐤅]רם𐤓𐤌.בר𐤁𐤓.[אחאב𐤀𐤇𐤀𐤁.]}}<br>

8. {{Script/Phoenician |𐤌𐤋𐤊.𐤉𐤔𐤓𐤀𐤋.𐤅𐤒𐤕𐤋[𐤕.𐤀𐤉𐤕.𐤀𐤇𐤆]𐤉𐤄𐤅.𐤁𐤓[.𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤓𐤌.𐤌𐤋]}}<br/>

8. {{Script/Hebrew|מלך.ישראל.וקתל[ת.אית.אחז]יהו.בר[.יהורם.מל]}}<br/>

9. {{Script/Phoenician |𐤊.𐤁𐤉𐤕𐤃𐤅𐤃.𐤅𐤀𐤔𐤌.[𐤀𐤉𐤕.𐤒𐤓𐤉𐤕.𐤄𐤌.𐤇𐤓𐤁𐤕.𐤅𐤀𐤄𐤐𐤊.𐤀]}}<br/>

9. {{Script/Hebrew|ך.ביתדוד.ואשם.[אית.קרית.הם.חרבת.ואהפך.א]}}<br/>

10. {{Script/HebrewPhoenician |ית𐤉𐤕.ארק𐤀𐤓𐤒.הם𐤄𐤌.ל𐤋[ישמן𐤉𐤔𐤌𐤍 ]}}<br/>

11. {{Script/HebrewPhoenician |אחרן𐤀𐤇𐤓𐤍.ולה𐤅𐤋𐤄[... ויהוא𐤅𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤀.מ𐤌]}}<br/>

12. {{Script/HebrewPhoenician |לך𐤋𐤊.על𐤏𐤋.יש𐤉𐤔[ראל𐤓𐤀𐤋... ואשם𐤅𐤀𐤔𐤌.]}}<br/>

13. {{Script/HebrewPhoenician |מצר𐤌𐤑𐤓.ע𐤏[ל𐤋. ]}}}}

Romanized:

Line 99:

===Content===

In the second half of the 9th century BCE (the most widely accepted date for the stele), the kingdom of [[Aram -Damascus|Aram]], under its ruler [[Hazael]], was a major power in the [[Levant]]. [[Tribe of Dan|Dan]], just 70 miles from Hazael's capital of [[Damascus]], would almost certainly have come under its sway. This is borne out by the archaeological evidence: [[Israelites|Israelite]] remains do not appear until the 8th century BCE, and it appears thatapparently Dan was already in the orbit of Damascus even before Hazael became king in c. 843 BCE.{{sfn|Athas|2003|pp=255–257}}

The author of the inscription mentions conflict with the kings of Israel and the 'House of David'.<ref>{{cite journal |title=The Dispute over the Land of Qedem at the Onset of the Aram-Israel Conflict: A Reanalysis of Lines 3–4 of the Tel Dan Inscription |journal=Journal of Near Eastern Studies |last=Knapp |first=Andrew |issue=1 |volume=73 |pages=105–116 |doi=10.1086/675307 |year=2014 |issn=0022-2968}}</ref> The names of the two enemy kings are only partially legible. Biran and Naveh reconstructed them as [[Jehoram of Israel|Joram, son of Ahab]], King of Israel, and [[Ahaziah of Judah|Ahaziah, son of Joram]] of the House of David. Scholars seem to be evenly divided on these identifications.{{sfn|Hagelia|2005|p=235}} It is dependent on a particular arrangement of the fragments, and not all scholars agree on this.

In the reconstructed text, the author tells how Israel had invaded his country in his father's day, and how the god [[Hadad]] then made him king and marched with him against Israel. The author then reports that he defeated seventy kings with thousands of chariots and horses (more on this below). In the very last line there is a suggestion of a siege, possibly of [[Samaria (ancient city)|Samaria]], the capital of the kings of Israel.{{sfn|Hagelia|2005|p=235}} This reading is, however, disputed.{{sfn|Athas|2003|pp=259–308}}

Line 112:

===Dating ===

Archaeologists and [[epigrapher]]s{{which|date=September 2016}} put the earliest possible date at about 870 BCE, whilst the latest possible date is "less clear", although according to Lawrence J. Mykytiuk it could "hardly have been much later than 750".{{sfn|Mykytiuk|2004|pp=115, 117 fn. 52}} However, some scholars (mainly associated with the [[Copenhagen School (theology)|Copenhagen school]]) – [[Niels Peter Lemche]], [[Thomas L. Thompson]], and F. H. Cryer – have proposed still later datings.<ref>

| quoteCompare: {{harvp|Hagelia|2005|pp=233–234|ps=; "Except for some extremely late datings, most scholars date the text to the second half of the 9th century. The late datings come mainly from the Copenhagen scholars N. P. Lemche,[...] T. L. Thompson[...] and the late F. H. Cryer.[...] A not so late dating is argued by Athas, [...] dating the inscription to around 796 BC."}}</ref>▼

Compare: {{cite book

| last1 = Hagelia

| first1 = Hallvard

| year = 2004

| editor1-last = Edzard

| editor1-first = Lutz

| editor2-last = Retsö

| editor2-first = Jan

| title = Current Issues in the Analysis of Semitic Grammar and Lexicon

| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=dqnsPDHOY1YC

| series = Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, ISSN 0567-4980, volume 56, issue 3

| volume = 1

| chapter = Philological Issues in the Tel Dan Inscription

| location = Wiesbaden

| publisher = Otto Harrassowitz Verlag

| publication-date = 2005

| pages = 233–234

| isbn = 9783447052689

| access-date = 2016-09-21

▲| quote = Except for some extremely late datings, most scholars date the text to the second half of the 9th century. The late datings come mainly from the Copenhagen scholars N. P. Lemche,[...] T. L. Thompson[...] and the late F. H. Cryer.[...] A not so late dating is argued by Athas, [...] dating the inscription to around 796 BC.

}}

</ref>

===Cracks and inscription===

Line 144 ⟶ 123:

While the original translators proposed that line 6 of the inscription refers to the slaying of "seventy kings", later epigraphers have offered alternative readings. [[Nadav Na'aman]] proposed that the line should be read as Hazael slew "mighty kings". According to Lemaire, "the reading 'seventy' is based only on a very small fragment of a letter which is interpreted as part of an 'ayin but could also be part of another letter". He proposed that the inscription should instead grammatically be read as "two kings" were slain, in line with the subsequent description of the inscription of only having defeated two kings.{{sfn|Lemaire|1998|p=8}} Other scholars have followed and further developed Lemaire's reading.<ref>Na'aman, Nadav. "Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan", Israel Exploration Journal (2000), pp. 92–104</ref><ref>Ghantous, Hadi. The Elisha-Hazael paradigm and the kingdom of Israel: the politics of God in ancient Syria-Palestine. Routledge, 2014, pg. 61</ref>

Matthew Suriano has defended the "seventy" reading, arguing that it is a symbolic trope in ancient near eastern military language, representing the defeat of all other claimants to power. Noting that Hazael was himself a usurper to the throne of Aram-Damascus, he argues that ancient Syria would have posited a number of other rivals for the throne and that Hazael's claim to have slain "seventy kings" is a reference to him defeating his rivals in succession to the throne of Aram-Damascus.<ref>{{sfn|Suriano, Matthew. "The Apology of Hazael: A Literary and Historical Analysis of the Tel Dan Inscription", Journal of Near Eastern Studies (|2007), |pp. =163–176</ref>}}

==="House of David"===

{{See also|Davidic line}}

Since 1993–1994, when the first fragment was discovered and published, the Tel Dan stele has been the object of great interest and debate among epigraphers and [[Biblical studies|biblical scholars]]. Its significance for the biblical version of Israel's past lies particularly in lines 8 and 9, which mention a "king of Israel" and possibly a "house of David". The latter reading is accepted by a majority of scholars, but not all.<ref>{{harvnb|Mykytiuk|2004|p=126|ps=: is best translated as "the house of david," meaning the dynasty of David or the territory it ruled}}; {{harvnb|Pioske|2015|p=180|ps=: The most straightforward reading of the phrase ''bytdwd'' in line A9 of the Tel Dan inscription is the construct phrase "House of David", and this interpretation has garnered the assent of the majority of scholars familiar with the text.}}; {{harvnb|Schmidt|2006|p=315}}</ref>

Dissenting scholars note that word dividers are employed elsewhere throughout the inscription, and one would expect to find one between ''byt'' and ''dwd'' in ''bytdwd'' too if the intended reading was "House of David".<ref>{{harvnb|Stavrakopoulou|2004|p=86|ps=: However, though the reference to a "king of Israel" is fairly secure, the rendering of the phrase bytdwd as "House of David" is disputed, not least because it occurs without the expected word dividers, which are employed elsewhere throughout the inscription.}}; {{harvnb|Athas|2003|p=218|ps=: The crux for interpreting the lexeme ... lies in the fact that there is no word divider between the seeming two parts, .... This suggests that the lexeme incorporates only one idea rather than two separate ideas, and is to be understood as a single concept or entity. This is confirmed by the fact that elsewhere in the Tel Dan Inscription, construct expressions are used to denote two or more concepts that are both individually exclusive, yet connected genitivally in the given context.}}</ref> They contend that reading ''dwd'' as "David" is complicated since the word can also mean "uncle" (dōd) (a word with a rather wider meaning in ancient times than it has today), "beloved", or "kettle" (dūd).{{sfn|Pioske|2015|p=180}}{{sfn|Davies|2014|p=69|ps=: In the Bible DWD can mean 'beloved' or 'uncle', and in one place (1 Samual 2-14), it means 'kettle'.}} Lemche and Athas suggests that ''bytdwd'' could be a place-name{{sfn|Lemche|1998|p=43}} and Athas that it refers to Jerusalem (so that the author might be claiming to have killed the son of the king of Jerusalem, rather than the son of the king from the "house of David").{{sfn|Athas|2003|p=225|ps=: Although we cannot be perfectly certain that FIX was intended as a reference to Jerusalem during a time when the city was called FIX, we can be confident that FIX was indeed a toponym. The flow of the immediately surrounding context makes the proposed interpretation of FIX as a reference to Jerusalem most likely.}} R.G. Lehmann and M. Reichel proposes interpreting the phrase as a reference to the name or epithet of a deity.{{sfn|Athas|2003|pp=219-220}}

According to [[Anson Rainey]] the presence or absence of word dividers is normally inconsequential for interpretation.{{sfn|Rainey|1994|p=47}} Word dividers as well as compound words are used elsewhere in the inscription and generally in West Semitic languages, so it is possible that the phrase was treated as a compound word combining a personal name with a relational noun. Mykytiuk argues that readings other than "House of David" are unlikely.{{sfn|Mykytiuk|2004|pp=121–128}} [[Yosef Garfinkel]] has been vocally critical of alternate translations, characterizing them as "suggestions that now seem ridiculous: The Hebrew ''bytdwd'' should be read not as ''the House of David'', but as a place named ''betdwd'', in parallel to the well-known place-name [[Ashdod]]. Other minimalist suggestions included ''House of Uncle'', ''House of Kettle'' and ''House of Beloved''."{{Sfnsfn|Garfinkel|2011|p=47}}

[[Francesca Stavrakopoulou]] states that even if the inscription refers to a "House of David" it testifies neither to the historicity of David nor to the existence of a 9th-century BCE Judahite kingdom.{{sfn|Stavrakopoulou|2004|pp=86–87}}{{Explain|reason=How and why?|date=November 2021}} Garfinkel argues that, combined with archaeological evidence unearthed at [[Khirbet Qeiyafa]], the inscription's reference to a "king of the house of David" constitutes primary evidence that David was a historical figure and the founder of a centralized [[Iron Age II]] dynasty.{{Sfnsfn|Garfinkel|2011|p=51}}

==See also==

Line 172 ⟶ 151:

*{{cite book|last1=Athas|first1=George|year=2003|title=The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation|publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group|isbn=9780567040435|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OPqpzmYBOxgC}}

*{{cite book|last1=Biran|first1=Avraham|last2=Naveh|first2=Joseph|year=1993|title=An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan, Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2/3 (1993), pp. 81-98|publisher=Israel Exploration Society|jstor=27926300|ref=Biran}}

* {{cite journal|first1=Avraham|last1=Biran|first2=Joseph|last2=Naveh|title=The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment|journal=[[Israel Exploration Journal]]|date=1995|volume=45|issue=1|pages=1–18|jstor=27926361}}

*{{cite book|last=Brooks|first=Simcha Shalom|title=Saul and the Monarchy: A New Look|year=2005|publisher=Ashgate Publishing|isbn=9780754652045|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sNuyhL3TiX8C&pg=PA2}}

*{{cite book|last=Collins|first=John J.|title=The Bible After Babel|year=2005|publisher=Eerdmans|isbn=9780802828927|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yqClWOhqso0C&pg=PA27}}

Line 182 ⟶ 162:

*{{cite book|last=Grabbe|first=Lester L.|title=Ahab Agonistes|year=2007|publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group|isbn=9780567251718|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kcVmBAEo5rcC}}

*{{cite book|last1=Hagelia|first1=Hallvard|year=2005|chapter=Philological Issues in the Tel Dan Inscription|editor1-last=Edzard|editor1-first=Lutz|editor2-last=Retso|editor2-first=Jan|title=Current Issues in the Analysis of Semitic Grammar and Lexicon|publisher=Otto Harrassowitz Verlag|isbn=9783447052689|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dqnsPDHOY1YC&pg=PA232}}

* {{cite journal|last1=Lemaire|first1=André|title=The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography|journal=Journal for the Study of the Old Testament|volume=23|issue=81|year=1998|pages=3–14|issn=0309-0892|doi=10.1177/030908929802308101|s2cid=170552898}}▼

*{{cite book|last1=Lemche|first1=Niels Peter|year=1998|title=The Israelites in History and Tradition|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|isbn=9780664227272|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JIoY7PagAOAC}}

*{{cite book|last=Mykytiuk|first=Lawrence J.|title=Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200–539 B.C.E.|year=2004|publisher=Society of Biblical Literature|isbn=9781589830622|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eprY1Qd0veAC}}

*{{cite book |title=Epigraphy, Iconography, and the Bible |last=Mykytiuk |first=Lawrence J. |publisher=Sheffield Phoenix Press |year=2022 |isbn=978-1-914490-02-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lwXczgEACAAJ |editor-last=Lubetski |editor-first=Meir |chapter=Don’t Pave the Way for Circular Reasoning! A Better Way to Identify the Two Deceased Hebrew Kings in the Tel Dan Stele |editor-last2=Lubetski |editor-first2=Edith}}

* {{cite journal|last=Rainey|first=Anson F.|title=The 'House of David' and the House of the Deconstructionists.|journal=[[Biblical Archaeology Review]]|volume=20|date=November 1994|issue=6|page=47}}

*{{Cite book|last1=Pioske|first1=Daniel|date=2015|title=David's Jerusalem: Between Memory and History|series=Routledge Studies in Religion|volume=45|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1317548911|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IrKgBgAAQBAJ}}

Line 190 ⟶ 172:

*Schniedewind, William M., "Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu's Revolt." ''[[Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research]]'' 302 (1996): 75–90.

*{{cite book|last=Stavrakopoulou|first=Francesca|title=King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice|year=2004|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=9783110179941|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Af1E5i62nSEC}}

*Suriano,{{cite Matthew J.,journal "|title=The Apology of Hazael: A Literary and Historical Analysis of the Tel Dan Inscription", ''|journal=[[Journal of Near Eastern Studies]]'' 66/|last=Suriano |first=Matthew J. |issue=3 (2007):|volume=66 |pages=163–76 |year=2007 |doi=10.1086/521754 |issn=0022-2968}}

* {{cite journal|first1=Avraham|last1=BiranWesselius|first2=Joseph|last2first1=NavehJan-Wim|title=The Telfirst Danroyal Inscriptioninscription from ancient Israel: AThe Newtel Fragmentdan inscription reconsidered|journal=[[Israel ExplorationScandinavian Journal]]|date=1995 of the Old Testament|volume=4513|issue=12|year=1999|pages=1–18163–186|issn=0901-8328|jstordoi=2792636110.1080/09018329908585153}}{{refend}}

▲* {{cite journal|last1=Lemaire|first1=André|title=The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography|journal=Journal for the Study of the Old Testament|volume=23|issue=81|year=1998|pages=3–14|issn=0309-0892|doi=10.1177/030908929802308101|s2cid=170552898}}

* {{cite journal|last1=Wesselius|first1=Jan‐Wim|title=The first royal inscription from ancient Israel: The tel dan inscription reconsidered|journal=Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament|volume=13|issue=2|year=1999|pages=163–186|issn=0901-8328|doi=10.1080/09018329908585153}}{{refend}}

[[Category:9th-century BC steles]]

Line 204 ⟶ 184:

[[Category:Land of Israel]]

[[Category:Victory steles]]

[[Category:CollectionsCollection of the Israel Museum]]

[[Category:Davidic line]]

[[Category:Tribe of Dan]]