50 people in the Hebrew Bible also in archaeology

[semiopen]

The standard answer to the lack of a dot seems to be that the writer made a mistake. If you assume this however, that's got to put at least an asterisk by the reference to David. The guy is writing a Stele for his king before they had worker protection laws... maybe I guess.

My understanding is that all the dots on the Stele are appropriately placed except for this one.

I've also seen an opinion that the lack of a dot is normal

http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/compon ... Itemid=158

I'm not convinced by this article, but didn't read it carefully.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The lack of a dot could also be because there was no space. I think it's just inconclusive. I don't say it can't be a reference to a Davidic dynasty, but it's not a sure thing.

For all we know, the Davidic legend could have grown from the place name in a manner analogous to Romulus and Rome.

[semiopen]

The lack of a dot could also be because there was no space. I think it's just inconclusive. I don't say it can't be a reference to a Davidic dynasty, but it's not a sure thing.

For all we know, the Davidic legend could have grown from the place name in a manner analogous to Romulus and Rome.

Yeah, that's why I liked the way you originally put it.

[nili]

It means "Beloved," which is attested at least once in the Tanakh that I know of as an honorific for God (Isaiah 5:1)

Yes, that is the etymology of David.

[nili]

The standard answer to the lack of a dot seems to be that the writer made a mistake. If you assume this however, that's got to put at least an asterisk by the reference to David. The guy is writing a Stele for his king before they had worker protection laws... maybe I guess.

My understanding is that all the dots on the Stele are appropriately placed except for this one.

I've also seen an opinion that the lack of a dot is normal

http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/compon ... Itemid=158

I'm not convinced by this article, but didn't read it carefully.

Thank you.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It means "Beloved," which is attested at least once in the Tanakh that I know of as an honorific for God (Isaiah 5:1)

Yes, that is the etymology of David.

I know. That's my point. The name has an etymology. It's not just a name, it's also a regular word.

[nili]

It means "Beloved," which is attested at least once in the Tanakh that I know of as an honorific for God (Isaiah 5:1)

Yes, that is the etymology of David.

I know. That's my point. The name has an etymology. It's not just a name, it's also a regular word.

And it's a valid point. (You might find this interesting as well.)

But your point takes me back to an earlier question. Is there a rendering of the inscription that you find most plausible?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I'm saying a place name is equally plausible. "City of David" would be plausible.

[nili]

I'm saying a place name is equally plausible. "City of David" would be plausible.

I understand that this is what you are saying. I also understand that you are repeatedly avoiding my question. As you wish. I still think I might benefit from reading your equally plausible rendering of the inscription, but I don't want to push you into doing something that you feel ill prepared to do.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I just gave you a rendering - "City of David." It's not so much a question of translation, but whether it's a family name or a place name. Is it BYTDWD or BYT.DWD? It could be either, and the lack of a divider usually means a place name. If we did not know of a King David from the Bible, BYTDWD would be taken at least initially as a probable place name. We don't wonder is there was a "House of Bread" dynasty or a "House of El" dynasty.