Is a New Name from the Bible Really to Be Found on the Mesha Stele?

​A couple of weeks ago, I received an embargoed press release announcing a radical new interpretation of the ninth century Mesha Stele, which a team of researchers now claims could represent the first and only independent confirmation of the existence of King Balak outside of the Bible (Numbers 22-24). I honestly don’t care whether Balak existed or not, but I found the reasoning used to make the claim to be somewhat lacking. 

​The Mesha Stele was erected to record the history of Mesha of Moab, a king mentioned in the Bible. It was discovered in the nineteenth century, but after its discovery, part of the inscription flaked off. The research team reexamined the damaged section using a copy made in the nineteenth century.
 
Now that the embargo has long passed, let’s take a look at what the researchers claimed, courtesy of the press release:

A name in Line 31 of the stele, previously thought to read בית דוד, ‘House of David’, could instead read ‘Balak’, a king of Moab mentioned in the biblical story of Balaam (Numbers 22-24), say archaeologist Prof. Israel Finkelstein and historians and biblical scholars Prof. Nadav Na’aman and Prof. Thomas Römer, in an article published in Tel Aviv: The Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. […]
 
The authors studied new high-resolution photographs of the squeeze, and of the stele itself. These new images made it clear that there are three consonants in the name of the monarch mentioned in Line 31, and that the first is the Hebrew letter beth (a ‘b’ sound). 
 
While the other letters are eroded, the most likely candidate for the monarch’s name is ‘Balak’, the authors say. The seat of the king referred to in Line 31 was at Horonaim, a place mentioned four times in the Bible in relation to the Moabite territory south of the Arnon River. “Thus, Balak may be a historical personality like Balaam, who, before the discovery of the Deir Alla inscription, was considered to be an ‘invented’ figure,” they suggest.
 
“The new photographs of the Mesha Stele and the squeeze indicate that the reading, ‘House of David’ – accepted by many scholars for more than two decades – is no longer an option,” the authors conclude. “With due caution we suggest the name of the Moabite king Balak, who, according to the Balaam story of Numbers 22–24, sought to bring a divine curse on the people of Israel. 
 
“This story was written down later than the time of the Moabite king referred to in the Mesha Stele. Yet, to give a sense of authenticity to his story, its author must have integrated into the plot certain elements borrowed from the ancient reality, including two personal names: Balaam and Balak.”

​The reasoning here is circular. All they really have to work with is the letter B and two other unknown consonants. They then used the Bible to look up names that might fit, and, having found one, turned around and suggested that the stone proved that Balak really existed.
 
It’s funny that the authors simultaneously propose the identification with “due caution” but then, based on their own conclusions allege that the Bible writers “must” have drawn this king’s name from life.
 
I will put this out there: The name could be anything. Since we know almost nothing of Moabite royal names, we have no idea how many kings were named Balak, or how many other B-names they had. So, even if the stone records a real name, and that name was Balak, there is no way to know that it refers to the same Balak as the one in the Bible. Is it possible? Sure. Is it a conclusion that we “must” make because it is “most likely”? No. At best it is a possibility that needs more evidence to support.
 
The claim was itself disappointing, and the media coverage that leveled out the story into straight-up “proof” of the Bible was worse.