« I Know A Pile When I See One
Main
The Leviticus Scroll Fragments: How Much Material is Needed for Testing? »
May 10, 2007
The David Dynasty: Extra-Biblical Evidence; A Brief Look
A few days ago, Jim West and Claude Mariottini discussed a recent documentary on the reigns of David and Solomon and the evidence for the existence of these individuals and their dynasty. I haven't seen the documentary but both Jim and Claude report it to be good. Go check out what they have to say. I started to write a post on the three pieces of extra-biblical evidence that some scholars have used to argue for the historicity of the Davidic dynasty. I soon realized that, in the context of other things I am working on, the amount of work required to do a competent job was greater than I wanted to exert at this time. So here is an incompetent job.
I started with the Karnak Inscription, which may or may not mention the "heights of David." The Karnak Inscription, in Egyptian hieroglyphics, is a very difficult list of places Pharaoh Shoshenq (Shishak) says he conquered. Name ovals 105 and 106 in line 8 of the lower register are the focus of discussion when it comes to David. The more I looked at these name ovals and their surrounding context the less I understood about them and the less I understood about the inscription as a whole. Research often starts out this way. On the one hand, it also takes a good deal of explaining to see "heights of David" in those two ovals. On the other hand, I think that those who want to make something out of the fact that the Karnak Inscription does not mention Jerusalem should look at name oval 113 (lower register, line 8). Oh, it doesn't say Jerusalem (or David for that matter.) In fact, oval 113 is missing, as are about a dozen name ovals. Several others are not readable. Now, I don't know if "Jerusalem" was written in any of these missing or unreadable ovals. There is not reason to think that it was. But there is also no reason to think that it wasn't. Nothing can or should be said about Jerusalem other than it is not mentioned in any readable portion of the inscription.
So I turned to the Mesha Stele with which I was more familiar. It's in a language, Moabite, that is very similar to Hebrew and it clearly names Omri, one of the most important Kings of Israel. Mesha claims to have defeated him. But does it really say anything about a Davidic dynasty beyond naming a king that the Hebrew Bible says is part of that dynasty? Some Babylonian and Assyrian text also name Omri. From these texts, one might think we are dealing with Omri's dynasty. Well, the Mesha Stele may or it may not say something about David. Line 12 has this linguistic beauty, אראל דודה. Perhaps it means a "thingy" (altar hearth?) "of his David" but don't take that to the bank. While many interpretations have been offered, none, on cursory examination, seems to me to rise above a probability of about 25%.
So, what about the Tel Dan Stele? The much discussed and disputed construction in this Aramaic inscription is בתדוד. Here the most natural understanding is "house of David." But not everyone is satisfied and some truly low probability interpretations have been proposed. I think some of these proposals are in an effort to avoid the nearly obvious. There may be a question about whether this means the dynasty of David or the territory (once) associated with David. In my view, the former is the more likely. Is it certain that this construction refers to the "house of David?" No. Is it very likely? Yes. In fact, I cannot help but think that if this were the only reference to David anywhere, most scholars would understand these words to refer to some founding leader or to a temple of the god DWD. I believe that the Tel Dan Stele, taken as a whole excludes the "temple" interpretation.
So there you have it. The Tel Dan Stele very likely refers to David and his "house" and the Karnak Inscription and Mesha Stele may or may not refer to David. What does it mean? Not much. If this gives comfort to any fundamentalists, they are in direr need of comfort. Don't they already know the truth by way of the Bible? I would think that most other believers would find this somewhat boring. And of course, the Tel Dan Stele says nothing about the size or extent of David kingdom (if a founder needs a kingdom) and it says nothing at all of Solomon's. Only a few of us with abnormal interests are truly excited by such things and I find the unknown issues surrounding the Karnak Inscription and Mesha Stele far more interesting than the fairly obvious reading of "house of David" in the Tel Dan Stele. In fact, there are far more interesting things in the Tel Dan Stele than these words.
Posted by Duane Smith at May 10, 2007 7:18 PM | Read more on Hebrew Bible |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2102