Question about the Tel Dan stele

[ignorantianescia]

For who doesn't know, the Tel Dan stele contains a text in Aramaic mentioning the "House of David". It dates to the 9th or 8th century. After its discovery, some scholars proposed far later dates or claimed it was a forgery. The consensus is that the stele is genuine and that the text refers to the House of David, not to "the House of Dod" or "a house of an uncle".

Does anybody know whether any of the scholars who doubted it authenticity or age (and are still alive, I guess that leaves Thompson, Davis and Lemche) changed their mind later? (No, I don't get my hopes up either.)

[ignorantianescia]

Apparently Lemche had changed his mind about the cumulative weight of the evidence when he revisited the subject in 2003. Though it is restricted to authenticity, not dating.

amaickingdavid.blog.com/2011/05/26/tell-dan-evidence-for-david-queried/

‘Even if my observations about the almost uncanny prominence of the terms ‘King of Israel’ and ‘House of David’ are not accepted, I have to admit that the arguments in favour of seeing the Tel Dan fragments as fake need to be much more forceful—certainly stronger than I have been able to show in this survey—if they are to prove beyond doubt that the inscription is the work of a forger.’[22]

‘At the end of the day, is the Tel Dan inscription important for the study of the history of Israel in Antiquity?Of course is important—if it is genuine. And, until the opposite has been proven, we have to reckon it to be genuine.’[23]