![]() The historian can justifiably assume the actual existence of David, but a critical Zie, King David: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 11-15. Scription," Biblical Archaeology Review 2Q15 (May/June 1994) 30-37. Stele Fragment from Tel Dan," Israel Exploration Journal 43 (1993) 81-98, and "The Tel Dan Inscription: A Newįragment," IsraelExploration Journal 45 (1995) 1-21 and Andre Lemaire, "House of David Restored in Moabite In. ![]() See Avraham Biran and Joseph Naveh, "An Aramaic LrThe two inscriptions are the Tel Dan and Mesha steles. Samuel 16-1 Kings 2,1 Chronicles, and Psalms. There are three large sections or books of the Bible that relate to David: 1 Therefore, the nature of the literatureĪbout David in the Bible must be carefully considered. That the Bible's portrait of him is historical. The likely existence of a historical David does not necessarily mean Since there are no other archaeological remains that mention him or can be attrib. Light the fact that the Bible is the only extant source for information about David, Upon those who would deny his historicity. ![]() They do not, therefore, prove the existence ofĭavid the individual, although it is fair to say that they place the burden of proof Tifies this assumption.1 The inscriptions actually refer to the "house of David"-the Years after the time when he is supposed to have lived (ca. Sibly two inscriptions bearing David's name and dating from a little more than 100 The title of this article implies that David was a historical character, an assump-tion fiercely contested by some scholars. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |