vix.ing · top · new · best · stats · spec

The first royal inscription from ancient Israel: The tel dan inscription reconsidered

1999/01/01 by Jan‐Wim Wesselius · 1 citation
Arts and Humanities · #Biblical Studies and Interpretation #Archaeology and Historical Studies #Ancient Near East History #Throne #Reign #Cult #Ancient history #History #Akkadian #Classics #Art #Literature #Philosophy #Politics #Law

paper · doi:10.1080/09018329908585153

openalex publication_date 1999/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29

Abstract

Since its publication by A. Biran and J. Naveh in 1994 and 1995, the early Aramaic Tel Dan inscription, with its supposed connection with the coming to the Northern Israelite throne of Jehu ben Nimshi in 842 or 841 BCE as described in 2 Kings 9–10, has caught the attention of Aramaic and biblical scholars alike, in spite of its very fragmentary state, which makes any and all conclusions preliminary only. Most scholars who accepted the editors’ placement of the fragments assumed that it is an Aramean royal inscription, set up in Dan during a period of Aramean mastery of the place, and that the unnamed king, probably Hazael, claimed to have killed Joram and Ahaziah, the kings of Israel and Judah, in contrast with the biblical account, where this feat is ascribed to Jehu. Here it is argued that the “I” of this inscription must be Jehu, not because of any a priori assumption about the value of the biblical text, but because there turns out to be a very good fit between the information provided in the inscription and in the biblical story of Jehu's revolt, including his being the only king of Israel to start his reign as a worshipper of Hadad. This would make the Tel Dan inscription into a royal inscription of Jehu himself, written between his coming to the throne and his removal of the cult of Baal / Hadad some time afterwards. The use of the Aramaic language can be ascribed to close links with the Aramean kingdom of Damascus, as is his designation of Hazael, part of whose name is to be read in the second line, as “my father”. Ahaziah's title, “King of the House of David”, also finds a very natural explanation in the North‐Israelite context.

Citations

Cited by