A House Divided: Davies and Maeir on the Tel Dan Stela

022

In 1993, the famous BYTDWD (Beyt David; House of David) inscription was discovered at Tel Dan in an excavation led by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran. This was the first time the name David had been found in the archaeological record. Accordingly, a powerful argument of the so-called Biblical minimalists, who doubted the very existence of David, was blown to smithereeens.

For a long time the minimalists argued that BYTDWD did not mean House of David but could be a place name or be translated house of “uncle,” “beloved” or “kettle”—and even that it might be a forgery. These arguments have long disappeared—or so it seemed, until leading minimalist Welsh archaeologist Philip R. Davies returned to them in a recent book.¹

“I am not aware that the fragments have been subject to forensic examination, something that perhaps should now be routine in view of recent proven forgeries … Until reasonable doubts [of authenticity] are removed, any conclusions are provisional,” Davies wrote.

Moreover, he argues that BYTDWD, even if it does mean “House of David,” means only that the family of David existed, not that the state, specifically the state of Judah, existed.

Davies’s discussion was reviewed by Aren Maeir, the archaeologist currently excavating at Tell es-Safi/Gath.² Maeir describes Davies’s positions regarding the “House of David” inscription, which dates to the ninth–eighth century B.C.E., about 150 years after the Bible says David became head of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah.

Here are Maeir’s words:

“Davies’s attempt, at whatever cost, not to recognize BYTDWD as relating to the early kingdom of Judah smacks as a desperate attempt to not allow any evidence that is contrary to his previously published opinions to enter the arena.

“His very arguments, which rely to a large extent on the analysis of the appearance of the term BYTDWD in the Biblical text are quite contradictory, since why should the supposedly much later Biblical use of this term have any relevance for understanding its use in the ninth century B.C.E.?

“Finally, while at the beginning of the chapter, he concedes that the inscription is authentic, he once again raises the claim that, due to the circumstances of its discovery, it requires forensic examination of authenticity. This is quite preposterous, since the circumstances of its discovery are not at all questionable, as [the stela fragments] were discovered in a controlled, scientific excavation and swiftly and admirably reported. If we were required to conduct examinations of authenticity of all objects derived from controlled excavations, hundreds of thousands of finds would have to be examined—wasting precious limited resources all with an obvious answer. In my opinion, the issue to be examined here is the motivation of those scholars, such as Davies, who doubt the veracity of a find from an excavation, which is quite different from a find that appeared in the antiquities market.”

In 993, the famous BYTDWD (Beyt David; House of David) inscription was discovered at Tel Dan in an excavation led by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran. This was the first time the name David had been found in the archaeological record. Accordingly, a powerful argument of the so-called Biblical minimalists, who doubted the very existence of David, was blown to smithereeens. For a long time the minimalists argued that BYTDWD did not mean House of David but could be a place name or be translated house of “uncle,” “beloved” or “kettle”—and even that it might be a forgery. These arguments […]