50 people in the Hebrew Bible also in archaeology

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Nothing on that list is surprising or controversial except David, which is a little strained.

I understand your comment regarding Solomon, but why do you consider the Tel Dan reference strained?

It's a questionable identificaton. The way BYTDWD is written - as one word rather than two - normally indicates a place name. "Beth" as a prefix, is like "ville" or "burg" in English. Bethany, Bethlehem, Bethsaida, etc. Bethdavid (if that's what it is) should indicate a place name. Usually if its a dynastic name ("House of") it's two words.

[toejam]

Interesting. Look forward to "digging" into this a bit further

Does anyone have a list like this for New Testament figures?

[nili]

Nothing on that list is surprising or controversial except David, which is a little strained.

I understand your comment regarding Solomon, but why do you consider the Tel Dan reference strained?

It's a questionable identificaton. The way BYTDWD is written - as one word rather than two - probably indicates a place name. "Beth" as a prefix, is like "ville" or "burg" in English. Bethany, Bethlehem, Bethsaida, etc. Bethdavid (if that's what it is) should indicate a place name. Usually if its a dynastic name ("House of") it's two words.

Thompson is certainly worth consideration. He is, however, an entrenched minimalist who finds much to be 'questionable.' Would you say that his view on the matter is widely held?

As for "probably indicates" or "should indicate," I really don't know enough about Aramaic inscriptions to judge. Are there comparable examples that you could offer?

Finally, is there a translation of the stele that you find preferable to that offered by Wikipedia?

Thanks.

[semiopen]

I gave a link in the post above Diogenes to George Athas who is an expert on the subject and a non-minimalist.

The Rev Dr George Athas http://www.moore.edu.au/faculty-members/george-athas

Lemke's argument is the most widely known criticism of bytdvd, but it is hardly convincing.

I'm not completely sure what the implication of Athas writing is but he's right about bytdvd.

[nili]

I gave a link in the post above Diogenes to George Athas who is an expert on the subject and a non-minimalist.

I picked up his book when it first came out but haven't looked at it in years.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Thompson is certainly worth consideration. He is, however, an entrenched minimalist who finds much to be 'questionable.' Would you say that his view on the matter is widely held?

It is shared by Israel Finkelstein, for one. I think the majority still holds with "House of David," though, but that's not particularly meaningful. Thompson was also distinctly in a minority when he started saying the Patriarchs never existed historically, but now that has become the accepted view.

As for "probably indicates" or "should indicate," I really don't know enough about Aramaic inscriptions to judge. Are there comparable examples that you could offer?

The question is can you find a BYT construction without a word divider that does NOT indicate a place name.

Finally, is there a translation of the stele that you find preferable to that offered by Wikipedia

The only question is whether is says "House of David" or something like "Davidtown." Normally when it's one word, it indicates a place, not a family dynasty. It's also not a given that DWD necessarily indicates the name, "David." It could also be translated as "Beloved," or even "Uncle."

I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm saying the identification is questionable. It's not a certainty and a prima facie reading, with no knowledge of the Biblial figure, would normally be taken as a place name, just like any other "Beth" construction.

[nili]

Thompson is certainly worth consideration. He is, however, an entrenched minimalist who finds much to be 'questionable.' Would you say that his view on the matter is widely held?

It is shared by Israel Finkelstein, for one.

That surprises me. Can you offer a source?

As for "probably indicates" or "should indicate," I really don't know enough about Aramaic inscriptions to judge. Are there comparable examples that you could offer?

The question is can you find a BYT construction without a word divider that does NOT indicate a place name.

No, that is not the only question. It is simply your only answer.

[spin]

Beit frequently meant "temple" in early literature. Bethaven meant "house of idols". Think of these place names with theophoric: Bethanat, Bethdagon, Bethel, Bethbaalpeor, Bethshemesh... "House of the Beloved" fits in well, given the "beloved" as a reference to a deity, just as "baal" is (meaning "lord").

[nili]

Beit frequently meant "temple" in early literature. Bethaven meant "house of idols". Think of these place names with theophoric: Bethanat, Bethdagon, Bethel, Bethbaalpeor, Bethshemesh... "House of the Beloved" fits in well, given the "beloved" as a reference to a deity, just as "baal" is (meaning "lord").

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. To the best of my knowledge 'beit' simply means 'house-of', e.g., beit din, beit midrash, beit knesset. The house of a deity would indeed be a temple. Is there a compelling reason to read dwd a the name of some god?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It means "Beloved," which is attested at least once in the Tanakh that I know of as an honorific for God (Isaiah 5:1)