Talk:Mesha Stele

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
 
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ancient Near East (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Judaism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Bible (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


translation[edit]

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?

House of David[edit]

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)

Egocentric?[edit]

Did anyone read this and think the king of Moab was very egocentric? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.94.62 (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Please, have some respect for the dead, your modern understanding of his politics and ideology doesn't matter. In fact, Mesha was a typical Eastern king for his time, a just saviour of his people and a pious servant of his divine Protector - that's what the stele tells. Asharidu (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

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)

Lacking important information[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Better photo of Mesha Stele[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 16:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Proof[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Copyvio[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. Zerotalk 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[edit]

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.[1] 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).[2]

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? Zerotalk 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 (talkcontribs) 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. Zerotalk 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. Zerotalk 14:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)