This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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 Frankly, I can't see why a translation that is 144 years out of date has been considered even remotely acceptable here!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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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
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)
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)
Does anyone have a copy of the following book:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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 [3] 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): [4] 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
@ 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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
He was a creationist evangelist. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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
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)
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)
Does anyone have a copy of the following book:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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 [3] 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): [4] 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
@ 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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
He was a creationist evangelist. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
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)