Diogenes the Cynic wrote:I just gave you a rendering - "City of David." It's not so much a question of translation, but whether it's a family name or a place name.
Or both.
Let me ask the question differently. Do you have any issue with the rendering found in Tel Dan Stele?
I don't know what you mean by "rendering found on the stele." The stele only renders it one way. Or are you talking about the actual reconstruction of the pieces.
It wouldn't be both a city and a dynasty, by the way. that's nonsensical.
Diogenes the Cynic wrote:I don't know what you mean by "rendering found on the stele." The stele only renders it one way. Or are you talking about the actual reconstruction of the pieces.
Thanks. Reconstruction is much clearer.
Diogenes the Cynic wrote:It wouldn't be both a city and a dynasty, by the way. that's nonsensical.
I think the term 'dynasty'' is unhelpful - in fact prejudicial. But a reference to BeitDavid ['city' of David] might well serve as real yet inconclusive evidence of a Beit-David [house of David].
The Wikipedia reference offers:
[ ]...[ ] and cut [ ]
[ ] my father went up [ ] he fought at [...]
And my father lay down; he went to his [fathers]. Now the king of I/rael had penetrated
into my father's land before. [But then] Hadad made me king,
And Hadad marched before me. So I went forth from [the] seven[...]/s
of my rule, and I killed [seve]nty kin[gs] who had harnessed thou[sands of cha]/riots
and thousands of cavalry. [And I killed ...]ram son of [...]
the king of Israel, and I killed [...]yahu son of [... the ki]/ng of
the House of David. And I made [their towns into ruins and turned]
their land into [a desolation ...]
others and [...Then...became ki]/ng
over Is[rael...And I laid]
siege against [...]
Let's grant - and I do -that "bytdwd" is simply a synonym for Judah or, if you prefer, Jerusalem. Do you really hold that BethDavid, BethBeloved, BethUncle, and BethCauldron are equally plausible toponyms?
None can be ruled out is what I'm saying. A place name would be the most plausible guess without a word divisor - "Place [or Temple] of the Beloved" would probably be the tentative translation if no King David was known from the Bible.
I'm not saying it can't refer to a Davidic dynasty, I'm saying it might or it might not. The evidence is inconclusive.
Diogenes the Cynic wrote:None can be ruled out is what I'm saying. A place name would be the most plausible guess without a word divisor - "Place [or Temple] of the Beloved" would probably be the tentative translation if no King David was known from the Bible.
And given the context and the fact that King David is known from the Bible, what do you feel is the most probable etiology of the place name?
I don't have an informed opinion on what is most probable as to etymology. Hebrew toponymy is not anything I feel qualified to comment on beyond maybe some basic vocabulary. This is Spin's territory, not mine. I would say that the name of a legendary founder could plausibly have been retrojected from the place name (just as Romulus was derived from Roma) regardless of the original etymology of the place name.
We know this is high level shit because bytdwd is spelled dwdtyb.
As for the reading dwdtyb in Fragment A, line 9, Athas interacts with scholarly opinion (pp. 217–25) and concludes, “I cannot stress enough that dwdtyb should be regarded as a toponym and not a reference to a Davidic dynasty. Although this label may have had an etymology going back to a Davidic dynasty, this is not how the author of the Tel Dan Inscription used it. Rather, the author was here referring to a geographical entity. My contention is that this geographical entity was Jerusalem”
Athas concludes that “the Tel Dan Inscription neither confirms nor denies the biblical assertion that a certain David lent his name to a fortress in Jerusalem” (p. 308). He adds, “This, however, is because that naming event is outside the inscription’s scope, the inscription being interested in other matters. Given the evidence, however, it certainly looks as though it was the case. As such, we cannot say that we have pinned David down outside the pages of the Bible. We may well, so to speak, have found a footprint, even a fresh one, but he himself still eludes us. We are, however, hot on his heels and our confidence in finding him has greatly increased. The Tel Dan Inscription does not give us proof of an historical David, but it may certainly be admitted as evidence” (pp. 308–9).
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. [emphasis added = nili] 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 [see source] 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 [see source] and [see source] in the inscription. The author's own position is then summarized in ten points, including a reconstruction of the text. [source]
spin wrote: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?
All your examples of terms using בית are post biblical, so they are of little use.
Dwd דוד is not in itself a name, just as Baal בעל is not a name, but a title. The former is a term of endearment, while the latter is a sign of status.
The problem we face is that in the bible when we come across—written as one word—beit + name it is usually a name that refers to a deity, as seen in the list I gave in my previous post. The combination indicates a town named for the temple to that deity.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Tel Dan Stele?