In response to Philip R. Davies’s brief article (“‘House of David’ Built on Sand,”BAR 20:04), a few observations are in order. Apart from the details of the Dan (and now the Mesha) inscriptions, there is a wider issue that concerns both Bible students and teachers.
Davies represents what he and a circle of colleagues call the “deconstructionist” approach to Biblical traditions. The present instance can serve as a useful example of why Davies and his “deconstructionists” can safely be ignored by everyone seriously interested in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern studies.
Regarding the recently excavated Dan inscription, Davies makes a great quibble about the absence of the word divider between the components BYT (House) and DWD (David). Joseph Naveh and Avraham Birana did not explain the inscription in detail, perhaps because they took for granted that readers would know that a word divider between two components in such a construction is often omitted, especially if the combination is a well-established proper name. “The House of David” was certainly such a proper political and geographic name in the mid-ninth century B.C.E. André Lemaire’s recent discovery that the same name (BYTDWD) appears in the Mesha stelab further confirms the reading in the Tel Dan inscription.
A well-known example of such a proper name composed of two components, is BL‘M.BRB‘R (Baalam, son of Beor) in line 4 of “Combination I” of the inscription from Deir‘Alla (discussed at length by Lemaire in his BAR article). There is a word divider, a dot, between BL‘M (Balaam) and BRB‘R (son of Beor), but no word divider between BR (son [of]) and B‘R (Beor). The patronymic of the prophet Baalam consists of two vocables, BR (son [of]) and B‘R (Beor). These vocables are in the Semitic syntactical relationship known as “construct.” The first is closely attached to the second, which takes the accent for both.
One may also note the personal name BRRKB (Bir-Rakib), written without a word divider in ancient Aramaic inscriptions from Zenjirli in southern Turkey. Students of Ugaritic texts, where word dividers are often used, are well acquainted with the use and non-use of word dividers; they would not be at all surprised by the absence of a word divider in a combination of this kind.
The same situation pertains to BYTDWD (House of David) in the text from Dan. The first component is BYT (house), here in the “construct” form meaning “house of.” The main accent is on DWD (David), the second component. The combination was obviously recognized by the scribe of the Dan inscription as an important proper name. There is no reason whatever to doubt the correctness of the reading “House of David.”
Davies’s objections are those of an amateur standing on the sidelines of epigraphic scholarship. Naveh and Biran cannot be blamed for assuming a modicum of basic knowledge on the part of their readers. They are not used to dealing with the dilettantism of the “deconstructionist” school. Competent scholars will doubtless take issue with some of Naveh and Biran’s interpretations, but Davies can safely be ignored.
What does all this mean for the readership of BAR? Trained scholars with first-hand experience in ancient Semitic inscriptions should have no problem. Laypersons and teachers of the Bible, however, who have not studied ancient texts in the original, would like to know what the Dan inscription really signifies. Teachers and lecturers at the secondary, college and seminary levels have serious work to do and must get as close to the facts as they can. I am not writing to them as an authority; my aversion to the “authority figure syndrome” should be well known.
On the other hand, as someone who studies ancient inscriptions in the original, I have a responsibility to warn the lay audience that the new fad, the “deconstructionist school,” represented by Philip R. Davies and his ilk, is merely a circle of dilettantes. Their view that nothing in Biblical tradition is earlier than the Persian period, especially their denial of the existence of a United Monarchy, is a figment of their vain imagination. The name “House of David” in the Tel Dan and Mesha inscriptions sounds the death knell to their specious conceit.c Biblical scholarship and instruction should completely ignore the “deconstructionist school.” They have nothing to teach us.
In response to Philip R. Davies’s brief article (“‘House of David’ Built on Sand,” BAR 20:04), a few observations are in order. Apart from the details of the Dan (and now the Mesha) inscriptions, there is a wider issue that concerns both Bible students and teachers. Davies represents what he and a circle of colleagues call the “deconstructionist” approach to Biblical traditions. The present instance can serve as a useful example of why Davies and his “deconstructionists” can safely be ignored by everyone seriously interested in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern studies. Regarding the recently excavated Dan inscription, Davies […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
Avraham Biran and Joseph Naveh, “An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan,” Israel Exploration Journal 43 (1993), pp. 81–98; see also “‘David’ found at Dan,”BAR 20:02.
For specific details, consult my forthcoming review of Davies’s book In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’ to appear soon in The Journal of the American Oriental Society. I am also preparing a review of Thomas Thompson’s Early History of the Israelite People from the Written & Archaeological Sources, which reveals the author’s lack of archaeological, textual and linguistic competence in dealing with original source material.
