Abstract
Contrary to the review by Victor Sasson, the author's treatment of the Tel Dan Inscription is not a new 'Minimized' reading of the fragments. A closer reading of his arguments reveals that he actually argues against the 'Minimizers'. The Tel Dan Inscription provides us with good evidence for the historicity of David which is in line with biblical testimony, and suggests the reliability of the biblical record. Furthermore, we need to read the Bible more carefully to avoid false expectations about what we are looking for in archaeology. In relation to the inscription, context demands that the word should not be understood as a dynastic label for Judah, but rather as a toponym for Jerusalem as a city-state. Sasson also misunderstands the nuances of the words and in the inscription. The author's own position is then summarized in ten points, including a reconstruction of the text.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
