Talk:Mesha Stele

House of David

This article leaves me still asking: is the reading "House of David" generally accepted in respectable academic circles, or is it not? PiCo 04:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Under the heading Content, the current last paragraph, which I added on Feb. 23, attempts to answer this question. In this paragraph, I had to open up a really squirmy can of worms, so I tried open it as little as possible: the matter of the biblical maximalist-minimalist controversy that has occasioned searching discussion, ungentlemanly exchanges, and not a few books. It probably merits an eventual article of its own. Lawrencemykytiuk 23:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, PiCo, because of the Tel Dan stele, even scholars who are not fond of the idea of a real, historical David will reluctantly accept that a certain David actually did rule somewhere in the southern kingdom of Judah, during the tenth century B.C.E. Typically, they quickly go on to claim that the David of the Tel Dan stele was at the level of a chieftain and that his kingdom was a very small "cow town" named Jerusalem, with its nearby environs. Relatively few scholars reject the reading "House of David." On another note, I really need to apologize for the lengthy delay in replying, PiCo. Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does "House of David" have to refer to an actual person, instead of, as in the case of Rome with Remus and Romulus, could it not refer to a mythic founder or even a local god? Even if the inscription is accurate why jump to the conclusion that this person actually existed? WjtWeston (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say "David" or this other things. Why has no one circled the named of Yahweh? And how is it possible when the language is not Hebrew? 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The language is closely related to Hebrew, it also uses a variant of early Hebrew scripts. 2601:140:8900:61D0:2511:ADB4:C001:50E4 (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

4WMS: Moabite actually basically IS Hebrew, or rather they are both very closely related dialects. See the wiki on Moabite language. Johundhar (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Confused

I'm confused as to why the Tel Dan Stele article has two transliterations and a modern translation, while this much more extensive and arguably more important text only has a very old and not very accurate translation and no transliteration. Johundhar (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

So I found a translation from a very respectable source, ANET ed. by Pritchard--a standard reference work in the field, transl. by William F. Albright, a giant in the field. There is also a pdf available online for free, but wiki didn't seem to like it. This in no way undermines the absolute legitimacy of the source. Please do not delete the translation, or at least give a clear reason why you don't find it acceptable. Frankly, I can't see why a translation that is 144 years out of date has been considered even remotely acceptable here!Johundhar (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Johundhar: Nobody is questioning the quality of the new translation. The difficulty is that Wikipedia has to obey copyright law and you can't arbitrarily insert material from a copyrighted source. There are possibilities that include fair-use, limited quotation, and paraphrase but the details are complex. I suggest you converse with administrator Diannaa about how to best present your source within the rules. Zero^talk 02:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is freely licensed content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute, it's not appropriate to copypaste large amounts of non-free text into Wikipedia. A more appropriate way to do it is to offer a link to the translation in the external links section of the article.— Diannaa (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. What constitutes 'large amounts'? And is there a rule of thumb for when something becomes 'free-text' (I tried looking it up, but couldn't find anything clear about material before 1978). Thanks ahead of time for any pointers. Sorry to take up your time, Johundhar (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that presenting a full transliteration would be a vital thing to have here. I was ready to undergo the laborious task of copying, letter by letter, the transliteration (and translation) from the Niccacci article, but I will not continue with that, given the above admonishments. (It is not easily available online without registering with JSTOR). I also don't understand why very useful information that was in free sources, like line breaks, have been deleted from the one (very bad) translation we are allowed to present here.Johundhar (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Translation

I reorganized the translation to correspond with line numbers of the source.

Also fixed some inacurracies. The meaning of "לפני" is "before" or "in front off", it litteraly means "at the face of". It can be translated to "before", or if one wants be litteral "at the face of", but not "before the face of". Same with "מפני", which means "away from", and litteraly "from the face of".

Itaj Sherman (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "קרב" means "inside", "inner side", "innermost part", "very near". In this case when reffering to the city, it means "inside the city" or "in the city", and not just the innermost part of it. Itaj Sherman (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a translation from an article by a historical scholar, Joan Ledering, a translation also used in other pretty legit sources such as World History Encyclopedia https://www.worldhistory.org/Moabite_Stone_[Mesha_Stele]/. I hope it stays within the rules. But I see a major dictum those rules is that 'Age Matters,' and the earlier translation presented is getting long in the tooth, indeed!Johundhar (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I note in E.W. Bullingers translation of the Mobite Stone he asserts in the 12th line of the inscription it states "I captured from thence the Arel of Dodah and tore him before chemosh in Kerioth : (Arel; 2 Lions) see 2nd Samual 23:20 Line 17 of transcription states; and I took from it the Arels of Yahveh and tore them before chemosh. The Jews kept scrolls of the 10 commandments in containers flanked by 2 Lions. Is it possible this is what Mesha was referring to ? LJH333 (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Lacking important information

There is only one sentence describing possibly one of the most important aspects of the stone: "The Stele is also significant in that it mentions the Hebrew name of God - YHWH. It is thought to be the earliest known reference to the sacred name in any artefact." Also, this section should stand on its own and the Contents section should be broken in to subsections. Just an observation: Researcher123456789 (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No source is given for the transcription of the text into modern letters. That's crucial for all the discussions of the contents, which (appropriately) make up most of the article. Is it original research, which shouldn't appear in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.73.8 (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to a much earlier versionj of the page, one last edited by User:Lawrencemykytiuk. Mykytiuk is an important scholar of ancient Levantine languages and inscriptions, and we were very fortunate that he took time to edit our article. I feel that edits since then have actually tended to make the article worse, not better, although of course that wasn't anyone's intention. I've given Mykytiuk's version a very light edit, largely from the point of style - too many words, which is a failing common to academic writing. Plus of course the editors in this thread are quite right about the need to find references for the transcription and translation - I'll try to do this. But please, don't change the actual article too much unless you're very sure it leads to an improvement. [User:PiCo|PiCo]] (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the previous section, I organized the translation to fit the line in the source, and then more accurate words. Others including you, fixed the translation even further. Your revert put it back to the state it was before, without the fitting lines, and some inaccurate translation. It seems that Mykytiuk, in all his edits in 2006, did not change the translation except one link, I don't know that gave it any attention. I think it was in best state right before your revert. I think we should put that version back in, and ask Mykitiuk to give it a look. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been 2 days and still no word. I just went ahead and re-reverted the translation to the revision as it was just before your revert. And also I put back the right allignment for the hebrew text, which is the right allignment, instead of the wrong one which is left, or the left one which is wrong (depends how you interpret the beginning of this sentence). --Itaj Sherman (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, PiCo, for the revert during September 2009, and thank you, Itaj Sherman, for handling the translation. I was a bit discouraged by what seemed to be erosion of the article, so the reversion was a morale boost. As you have correctly observed, I did not check the translation, figuring that someone else concerned for its accuracy would handle that part. I have no problem with anyone's editing in the direction of conciseness, as long as it is careful, as PiCo's edits are, thank goodness. With one book to my name, I care enough to edit certain aspects when I can. Sorry for the seven-month delay due to an academic year full of crunch times followed by recuperations and new pressures. Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence, I've taken the liberty of extending the paragraph about Rainey's reconstruction of line 12 to take in what I found in the DDD - I felt this was needed for balance. I've tried not to support or denigrate either possible reading (how could I?), but feel free to amend or revert me if you disagree. How I wish Wikipedia were always so civilised. PiCo (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Another

Another version is that the Arab villagers smashed the stele when they saw Europeans taking an interest in it because the Arabs thought that it contained treasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.202.217 (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Very nice little comment there. Subtly suggesting, based on "another version", that the Arabs could not care about the stele so they broke it out of greed. Your "observation" is humorous and it reeks of orientalism worse than garlic breath. If you make comments, make sure they have a point, that they're well documented and not carrying a certain load. Sufitul (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The "J*wish Encyclpedia", under "Moabite Stone", says the villagers, "dreading the loss of such a talisman, broke the stone into pieces". Gesenius's Hebrew Grammar, on page 9, in

section 2 d, in note 2, says that the stone was "broken into pieces by the Arabs",

but does not give their reasons. Jensen, in "Sign, symbol and script", 1970,

seems to mention the idea that the stone was full of treasure.

I have started a section on the modern history of the Stone which I hope will expand to include all the myths around how it was destroyed. In doing so I have come across a letter from Rev Klein saying that the reconstruction is the wrong shape. The Palestine Exploration Fund Magazine (1876 - Page 181) reproduces a letter from Klein printed in the Athenaeum 12 August 1876:

"I have seen it repeated again and again . . . that the Moabite Stone was square at the lower end, and not oblong, though I have plainly stated that it was not so." He goes on to "positively declare" that the Moabite Stone was rounded off at the lower end in exactly the same manner as at the upper end" and that he had sketches, made on the spot, to prove it. These sketches, and dimensions taken at the time, were published in the Illustrated London News. As far as I can tell Klein was the only European to see the complete inscription and, as he comments, the true shape "may in some manner affect the inscription (at least the two or three lower lines) itself."

Padres Hana (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sayce's reference to the mayor of Nablus is strange.Padres Hana (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Text

Moved to talk since not in English RJFJR (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many words still in the article that are not in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.192.176 (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The text in Moabite, transcribed into modern Hebrew letters:

1. אנכ. משע. בנ. כמש.. . מלכ. מאב. הד
2. יבני | אבי. מלכ. על. מאב. שלשנ. שת. ואנכ. מלכ
3. תי. אחר. אבי | ואעש. הבמת. זאת. לכמש. בקרחה | ב[נס. י]
4. שע. כי. השעני. מכל. המלכנ. וכי. הראני. בכל. שנאי | עמר
5. י. מלכ. ישראל. ויענו. את. מאב. ימנ. רבן. כי. יאנפ. כמש. באר
6. צה | ויחלפה. בנה. ויאמר. גמ. הא. אענו. את. מאב | בימי. אמר. כ[...]
7. וארא. בה. ובבתה | וישראל. אבד. אבד. עלמ. וירש. עמרי. את א[ר]
8. צ. מהדבא | וישב. בה. ימה. וחצי. ימי. בנה. ארבענ. שת. ויש
9. בה. כמש. בימי | ואבנ. את. בעלמענ. ואעש. בה. האשוח. ואבנ
10. את. קריתנ | ואש. גד. ישב. בארצ. עטרת. מעלמ. ויבנ. לה. מלכ. י
11. שראל. את. עטרת | ואלתחמ. בקר. ואחזה | ואהרג. את. כל. העמ. [מ]
12. הקר. רית. לכמש. ולמאב | ואשב. משמ. את. אראל. דודה. ואס
13. חבה. לפני. כמש. בקרית | ואשב. בה. את. אש. שרנ. ואת. אש
14. מחרת | ויאמר. לי. כמש. לכ. אחז. את. נבה. על. ישראל | וא
15. הלכ. הללה. ואלתחמ. בה. מבקע. השחרת. עד. הצהרמ | ואח
16. זה. ואהרג. כלה. שבעת. אלפנ. גברנ. ו[גר]נ | וגברת. וגר
17. ת. ורחמת | כי. לעשתר. כמש. החרמתה | ואקח. משמ. א[ת. כ]
18. לי. יהוה. ואסחב. המ. לפני. כמש | ומלכ. ישראל. בנה. את
19. יהצ. וישב. בה. בהלתחמה. בי | ויגרשה. כמש. מפני | ו
20. אקח. ממאב. מאתנ. אש. כל. רשה | ואשאה. ביהצ. ואחזה.
21. לספת. על. דיבנ | אנכ. בנתי. קרחה. חמת. היערנ. וחמת
22. העפל | ואנכ. בנתי. שעריה. ואנכ. בנתי. מגדלתה | וא
23. נכ. בנתי. בת. מלכ. ואנכ. עשתי. כלאי. האש[וח למי]נ. בקרב
24. הקר | ובר. אנ. בקרב. הקר. בקרחה. ואמר. לכל. העמ. עשו. ל
25. כמ. אש. בר. בביתה | ואנכ. כרתי. המכרתת. לקרחה. באסר
26. [י]. ישראל | אנכ. בנתי. ערער. ואנכ. עשתי. המסלת. בארננ.
27. אנכ. בנתי. בת. במת. כי. הרס. הא | אנכ. בנתי. בצר. כי. עינ
28. ----- ש. דיבנ. חמשנ. כי. כל. דיבנ. משמעת | ואנכ. מלכ
29. ת[י] ----- מאת. בקרנ. אשר. יספתי. על. הארצ | ואנכ. בנת
30. [י. את. מה]דבא. ובת. דבלתנ | ובת. בעלמענ. ואשא. שמ. את. [...]
31. --------- צאנ. הארצ | וחורננ. ישב. בה. בת[ד]וד
32. --------- אמר. לי. כמש. רד. הלתחמ. בחורננ | וארד
33. ---------[ויש]בה. כמש. בימי. ועל[...]. משמ. עש
34. -------------- שת. שדק | וא

Thank you! Did you transcribe this one-to-one from the Phoenician letters? Ligata (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ligata: That was posted here by either someone using multiple ID addresses or a sockpuppet, copied from elsewhere on the web. Even if they are still around they probably won't respond. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Better photo of Mesha Stele

There is a better photo [IMO] of the Mesha Stele at the wiki "Tetragrammaton" article. Maybe someone may wish to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Proof

So the original is missing, and the paper mache caste has never been shown?

And we're supposed to just assume that this is genuine? Do they think we're idiots?

216.54.22.188 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the original is not missing, but it is damaged. The pieces were reassembled and are on display in the Louvre Museum. -- Lindert (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A Critical Examination

Does anyone have a copy of the following book:

• Albert / Abraham Löwy, A Critical Examination of the So-Called Moabite Inscription in the Louvre, 3d ed., London: Printed for private circulation, 1903.

It questions the authenticity of the Mesha Stele. Would be interesting to see the basis on which it is questioned. Presumably part of the scepticism is based on the fact that in 1868 archaeological science was still relatively undeveloped and the expected confirmation bias of the Church Mission Society. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to that book, but the fact that archaeological science was undeveloped at the time of discovery is actually a strong argument for the authenticity of the stele. The reason is that a forger in the 19th century could not have known the details of the Moabite script. At the time almost nothing from that location and period had been excavated. Subsequently scientists have found many new (fragementary) inscriptions which match the Mesha Stele. -- Lindert (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lindert, FYI I just added a quote from William F. Albright using your exact argument above. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of Phoenician alphabets, Mark Lidzbarski, 1898

Comparison of Aramaic alphabets, Mark Lidzbarski, 1898

I should note though that Albright's argument is not wholly convincing, given that pages 19-46 of Gesenius's 1837 work include all of the variations of each of the characters in the Mesha Stele: [1]. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Not quite, I believe. Many letters are very similar, but it's about the details. Look for instance at the vav and the qoph: both are symmetrical in the Mesha Stele, but Gesenius has no symmetrical variants of either letter. - Lindert (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. Worth noting that Schroder had 331 Phoenician inscriptions at the time of the Mesha Stele versus only 70 available to Gesenius (p.241). Oncenawhile (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Lindert, out of interest, are you aware of any similar inscriptions with a symmetrical qoph? Lidzbarski's 1898 table suggests that the Mesha stele was still unusual from that perspective based on the corpus at the end of the 19th century. A few years later the Stele of Zakkur and Kilamuwa Stela were found, and both were mentioned by Albright as being similar to the Mesha script - I can't see symmetrical qophs in either of those but it may be the photos are not high res enough. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Lidzbarski's Aramaic table (now added on right), the qoph matches that much better. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about to post that the Melqart Stele has a very similar qoph (see p. 120 of this article. I am not currently aware of any examples in Hebrew or Phoenician inscriptions, but I haven't really looked into it much. - Lindert (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As do the Nerab and Zincirli inscriptions (see Monsieur C-G on his publication of the Nerab steles). It seems strange that the only known scripts which match were discovered 400-500km away... Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

And the Assyrian Lion Weights were discovered by Layard in the late 1840s, with a very similar script. This seems to me to undermine Albright's argument that this Mesha form of the script was unknown at the time. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio

We have a translation of the entire text, 566 words, in our articles. That much text is copyvio, and I'm asking for advice on trimming. What would be best of course is to find a PD translation. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a PD translation from 1888 here by Archibald Sayce (1846-1933). We could use that, but we should not ignore subsequent research and insights. Maybe we could use footnotes in places where modern translations differ significantly. - Lindert (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I knew Sayce had made one but the only version I found was interspersed with commentary, this is much easier to copy. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all happy with a translation that's getting on for a century old - things have moved on. I'd like to find something more recent. PiCo (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disrespectful language

I'm contending the neutrality of the following sentence:

"In any case, neither the Mesha inscription nor the Books of Kings were written as objective history, both were intended as propaganda for their respective gods, Kings to glorify Yahweh the God of Israel, and the stele to glorify Mesha and Kemosh the god of Moab."

I'm not so sure Christians and Jews would appreciate having their Scripture referred to as 'propaganda'. There must be a different way to phrase this sentence so it is respectful to people of faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.4.42 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

While being unnecesarily offensive is something to be avoided, whether some people would appreciate something is not really a criterion for inclusion/exclusion. The word propaganda has obviously very negative connotations, but taken at face value, it only means that it strongly propagates a message. It says nothing about whether that message is true or false. I personally believe that the books of Kings contain reliable history, but that does not mean that the only or even primary purpose of the author(s) was to record history.

There is however nothing against rephrasing the sentence, as long as it reflects the cited reference accurately. How about simply shortening the sentence to

"In any case, neither the Mesha inscription nor the Books of Kings are objective historical accounts; the Mesha stele was written to glorify king Mesha and Kemosh the god of Moab, and the Book of Kings to glorify Yahweh the God of Israel."

This has the added benefit that it removes the reference to 'their respective gods', because the Mesha stele glorifies king Mesha at least as much as Kemosh. - Lindert (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks better to me. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing important information

I have decided to undo the following changes 08:46, 7 April 2013‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,437 bytes) (-44)‎ . . (Jehovah is not the same as Yahweh) (undo)

My reasons are here in more detail. The appearance of the Biblical God on the Moabite Stone is very significant in that it provides another non-biblical reference to the divine name יהוה (YHWH). In Hebrew יהוה is generally pronounced Yahweh. Later Yahweh was translated into Latin as Iehova, and finally it was translated into Jehovah in English. There is nothing controversial about noting this stone containing the divine name. In fact it is very important to note this because King Mesha was not part of the nation of Israel. That Mesha knew the God of the Hebrews by name enough to inscribe this name on his stone tablet is very important. Gorba (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The stele does not describe the name, so that's wrong. Except for the translation the article uses Yahweh. The old translation we had used YHWH, but that had to be replaced with a free much older one. The name on the stone is clearly not Jehovah but Yahweh/YHWH, and a Google books search shows that Yahweh or YHWH is the preferred use. More than that, Yahweh is neutral it may refer to either a god of the Israelites or the god of the Israelites, thus it is not identical with Jehovah. Jehovah is generally thought of as the monotheistic god of Israel, and we don't know exactly what was meant by the word Yahweh on the stone - other than it referred to a god of Israel (read the article). So Jehovah is a violation of WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This is like saying 4 + 4 is the ONLY way to get 8. I have already provided evidence that Jehovah and Yahweh are the same name. Scholars the world over would agree with this conclusion. Jehovah is simply the Latin-English version of the divine name. In fact the name Jehovah actually appears in the translation within the article -- "I devoted them to Ashtar-Chemosh; and I took from it the vessels of Jehovah, and offered them before Chemosh." -- I am simply highlighting it as an item worth noting. To deny this edit on some sort of bizarre technicality is not only is wrong but also goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. I would appreciate it if - as a long time visitor and contributor - you would discontinue undoing my edits. Gorba (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Folks, there are several distinct issues here. First, Gorba is correct that "יהוה" is the same as Yahweh, though not correct that "in Hebrew יהוה is generally pronounced Yahweh". Actually it is not usually pronounced at all, since halacha forbids it; however Yahweh is considered by scholars a fair guess at how it would be pronounced. Gorba is also correct that Jehovah is the same as יהוה too: it is an erroneous transliteration of יהוה that somehow came into the English language. However, I don't think Gorba's sentence is good. For a start, the stele mentions יהוה but doesn't describe it. Second, the interpretation of the word יהוה in the passage as the Israelite god is one for scholars to argue about. This interpretation is not plainly provided by the text itself and so we shouldn't make a claim about it as a fact. Zero^talk 07:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, probably better explained than I could. The other point is that Yahweh as a name didn't always refer to the monotheistic Israelite god, or at least that scholars make a case that it wasn't. If you read the article it took a while after the first appearance of the name for that to occur. As Zero0000 says, we shouldn't make a claim about this as fact. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Credibility of Both Authorship & Translation in Question

I moved the Following HERE: The stele, whose story parallels, with some differences, an episode in the bible's Books of Kings (2 Kings 3:4-8), provides invaluable information on the Moabite language and the political relationship between Moab and Israel at one moment in the 9th century BCE. It is the most extensive inscription ever recovered that refers to the kingdom of Israel (the "House of Omri"), it bears the earliest certain extra-biblical reference to the Israelite god Yahweh, and — if French scholar André Lemaire's reconstruction of a portion of line 31 is correct — the earliest mention of the "House of David" (i.e., the kingdom of Judah).

I went to the source. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0ya0XskpSC4J:www.cojs.org/pdf/house_of_david.pdf+House+of+David%27+restored+in+Moabite+Inscription&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiDgJM9zOiYPXCyWcqqc5_FEDVsiHG059P8W_kK3QSp4AXJ4KTH2-QEE5MPDMExqhAr2iwuWDgU24IRNyhr-bhpNTkL4_qIoCrW5QJsh59s-KMulVh33vq0eo2F65Yd_82ZTlk4&sig=AHIEtbTxYcTg1Ubc4ZP-iYlaiKYXmLZImg ~ The image is not in any language I can recognize. Moabite what? Needs some cross source verification that these letter refer to what is being claimed. In Greek, the name Jesus is written as "Joshua". Check the Chalcedon and Niacene Scrolls for yourself as I have done online. This habit of, "Hey this name is just another name for that person", without any phonetic basis is killing the Religious Archaeology profession. {The reason for the jesus error, is that J did not exist until after 1,000AD. His phonetic name was "iisoun" in greek, and "yay'soun" in old latin, the "yay'suse" in middle latin. And again with they added "J" to the alphabet they tried to unite Jew with Jesus by using the same letter to name both faith and people.}

The highest concern, is that the parts being sighted were all added back into the tablet from the plaster imprint? How do we know this isn't a silly putty trick? Seriously, they could have printed this on clay, they transferred it to the broken parts of the tablet. What they quote and refer to, can not be located on the parts that are original, and they seem to have discarded the broken piece, rather than keep them? No Hebrew would ever throw away the original pieces!!! 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Your personal problems with the sources don't count here. You need to argue that the text is not supported by the source. Can you? Zero^talk 09:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can. There is no proof the source relates to what is claimed. There is not proof the text was not invented in plaster. ~ Lack of proof, makes their claims invalid. No honest archaeologist throws away the original pieces. / This is like the fake T Rex Dinosaur bones they found up north in the USA while I was a kid. You make a plaster skeleton, that is not proof of a real skeleton or creature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4WhatMakesSense (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the source is Lemaire's paper. Not the stele. You are not entitled to argue against Lemaire, nor to interpret the stele yourself. This is what the rules say. If you want to make your own arguments, you need to do it somewhere else. Zero^talk 13:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a Professional and a Hoax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man You can't believe people who, throw away the original Stone Evidence. 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

However, the reason that Wikipedia reports Piltdown Man as a hoax is because scholarly sources agree that it is a hoax. You and I cannot judge these things for ourselves according to Wikipedia's rules. We need reliable published sources. If most scholars would still be fooled by the Piltdown hoax, we as editors would be required to report it as genuine. Remember Wikipedia does NOT publish Original Research. - Lindert (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get that "they" threw away original pieces? (I read some but not all of the article.) The article says some bedouins destroyed it due to some controversy over ownership (and maybe for other reasons). Misty MH (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As to listing "Jesus" and "Joshua" here, and the letter "J", how is all that relevant to the article at hand? Misty MH (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

And, further, the way you've stated it about "Jesus" and "Joshua" (if I may continue what seems like a tangent in Talk) doesn't seem entirely accurate. Yes, there was no "J", perhaps, but the question would seem to be about IDENTITY not to some English rendering of a word. The Greek word for Joshua was apparently the SAME for Jesus, or at least several major translators of the Bible thought so. SEE Hebrews 4:8 in the NASB, ESV, NIV, YLT, RSV, or ASV. http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=%22Joshua%22&t=NASB#s=s_primary_58_1 AND http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&c=4&v=8&t=NASB#s=t_conc_1137008 (The Web site only supported use of the Concordance when using either the NASB or KJV. I picked the NASB for this topic, tangential to the topic of the Mesha Stele.) Some older versions in English, such as the KJV, "translate" 4:8 as "Jesus", which, if it's in reference to Joshua, would have been confusing to readers of those versions. Misty MH (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Photos of the SQUEEZE

I find the idea that there was an image of the original existing in a "squeeze" as fascinating, but in a quick Google search of images, I do not find a photo of the squeeze anywhere, though it is listed as existing at the same location as the Stele itself. Can some savvy editors or readers of this locate good photos of the squeeze itself? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete references

All the references that have just the author's last name need to be expanded to include the name of the work and other identifying information so other readers can take advantage of the rest of the material in them. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC) What work by Nadav Na'aman refers to Daodah? The author should have read this work to make sure it hasn't been quoted out of context and that it points to other evidence about Daodah. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Full specification of the references appears in the bibliography section. Are any missing? There seem to be a few errors; for example "Green 2004" is apparently the same as "Green 2010". This page (fn. 84) of Green's book gives a cite to Ne'eman. It would be fine to check Ne'eman's original and put in a direct citation if it is called for, but citing Green citing Ne'eman like we do now is allowed within our rules. Btw, the Ne'eman article seems to be IEJ 47(1997)83–92. Zero^talk 14:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

New Translation in Alphabetic Akkadian

I believe I need to make everyone aware that a new translation proposal has appeared for this Stele and others as well based upon an alphabetic form of Akkadian. You can see it at this website. Thoughts?

SalamisDragon (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. We can't use self-published sources unless there has been significant discussion in sources meeting WP:RS, which in this case would be academic sources. 12:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Translation

While the presented translation might be somewhat useful for readers interested in the inscription from a Biblical (or story telling) POV, it is not the most useful from a Linguist's POV.

While a linguistical analysis - would be to put it mildly not the most relevant for a story-oriented reader. Should there be a subpage with 'linguistic analysis of the inscription'? it makes certain sence, since for most readers the even actual text (in Moabit) probably seems like line-noise.

What's the current 'standart' in such articles of historic documents?

The translation of the sentence: "and I killed in all seven thousand men, but I did not kill the women and maidens, for I devoted them to Ashtar-Chemosh" - is just wrong. It says exactly the opposite of what the original text says.

The original text says:

16. זה. "ואהרג. כלה. שבעת. אלפנ. גברנ. ו[גר]נ | וגברת. וגר

17. ת. ורחמת | כי. לעשתר. כמש. החרמתה" | ואקח. משמ. א[ת.

That means, in English: "And I killed it (i.e, the city) all. Seven thousand men and boys, women and girls, and pregnant women (or "embryos")*, because I sacrificed it (i.e, the city)** to Ashtar-Chemosh".

The words "but I did not kill" simply don't appear in that text (or anything else like them). The translator only imagined them (maybe out of the kindness of his own heart).

• The word "רחמת" comes from "womb", but it is not clear if it means "pregnant women" or perhaps "embryos".

• • The word "החרמתה", which I translated as "sacrificed", is the same word as "חרם" which is used in the Hebrew Bible to indicate that the entire population of a city was killed, as a special kind of sacrifice or gesture to god, and no prisoners or booty were taken. For example see in the Bible: "..and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys" (Joshua 6: 20-21). The single Hebrew word used here that was translated here as "They devoted the city to the Lord" is "וַיַּחֲרִימוּ". The verb "חרם" actually means "to sacrifice by killing and/or burning", and that's exactly what Mesha king of Moab did - according to his own description. He killed everybody, for his god Chemosh... Pleas fix the translation, it's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.74.209.206 (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

We can only change the translation on the basis of a translation published in a reliable source. This is according to the rules. Zero^talk 08:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Doug Weller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, how about this source [2] - it looks reliable enough to me (although it translates "רחמות" to "maidens" [but the Hebrew Wikipedia page does the same])? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.74.208.159 (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with 'unsigned' here. There are lots of more recent and more accurate translations. I just started looking at this inscription a few days ago, and even I can see obvious problems in the translation ('took' instead of 'built' before "Beth Bamoth" even though the original has the exact same verb in the very next clause which here they rightly--according to every other translation I've seen--translate 'built'). Here's another recent translation by a scholar in the field Of course, all translations will have some passage that some will quibble with, but presenting one with such flagrant and obvious errors would seem to be a disservice to your readers, imho. Johundhar (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I see that it has to be an actual published source, not something just online, even if penned by a legit scholar. So here is a published source, over 100 years old, but it seems to be more accurate than the translation we have now (and at least 30 years more recent than it): I would be willing to type it in, if that is what it takes. Johundhar (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

One more point (for now :) ): I am fairly new to this text and to early Semitic generally, and I know we aren't supposed to do original research here, but I do have some experience (especially with Hittite) in restoring texts. I am struck that in line 33 there is some fairly legible text that doesn't seem to get translated (in the translations I've consulted so far, anyway), but that seems to be closely parallel to text in line 28. The sequence in 33 I transliterate <mšm.oš|>, while in 28 it is <mšmot> where it is translated "was loyal" here and by Compston (Smelik has 'was subjugated') referring to the town/city of Dibon.

Now there is no sentence break visible between this bit and the preceding statement (agreed by all translations I have seen) "Chemosh restored [Horonaim] in my days...", so we would expect the following clause to be closely related to this fact. The only part translated after that passage seems to mean 'thence' (Compton) or 'from there' (Smelik) or 'wherefore' here. It would be quite expected that this clause would follow up the temporal reference and affirm the lastingness of Chemosh's victory, besides being a close parallel of the 33 language, if it said something like "Chemosh restored [Horonaim] in my day, and from there (=from then on; i.e. up to this day; or King's 'wherefore') it has been loyal/has (remained) subjugated."

It would be great if someone with more experience than I in this field could comment on this possibility, or if someone more familiar with recent scholarship could say if some scholar in the field has proposed such a translation/reconstruction. I'll try to explore my local university library this week and see what I can find myself, as what I have found of online published sources on the text has been quite limited. Thanks ahead of time. Johundhar (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Only

@Makeandtoss: you are right there is nothing here - the discussion is at Talk:Tel Dan Stele#Only four. It seems to me if we are to have a binding decision across the four articles, we need to invite views from all four talk pages...

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mesha Stele. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331134523/http://www.cojs.org/pdf/house_of_david.pdf to http://www.cojs.org/pdf/house_of_david.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

New text available on Wikisource

The English Wikisource now has Compston's 1919 article on s:The Inscription on the Stele of Méšaʿ, with the Moabite text in Phoenician script, the same text in Hebrew square script, and an English translation of the text.

This article is not yet referenced in the Bibliography of the Wikipedia article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, EP. Compston's more accurate translation should replace the poor one we currently have, unless someone finds a more recent published version that is usable. Johundhar (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mesha Squeeze.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Harry Rimmer wasn’t an archaeologist

He was a creationist evangelist. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Definitely Fake idk how you could possibly say the consensus is legitimate

Just read this article. It’s 7 pages. Ventura appears to be institutionally unaffiliated but his research is found and points to sources that say the same thing. We have every reason to conclude it’s fake. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Davide-Ventura-2/publication/352292181_The_Mesha_Stele_a_Reappraisal_of_a_Forgery/links/60c225e44585157774c7a51b/The-Mesha-Stele-a-Reappraisal-of-a-Forgery.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ The-fbi-killed-julius-caesar (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)