Dr. Eilat Mazar and her team does it again!

[serapha]

Hi there....


"kudos"


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200475897717&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

First Temple seal found in Jerusalem

...Under this scene are three Hebrew letters spelling Temech, Mazar said.

The Bible refers to the Temech family: "These are the children of the province, that went up out of the captivity, of those that had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, and came again to Jerusalem and to Judah, every one unto his city." [Nehemiah 7:6]... "The Nethinim [7:46]"... The children of Temech." [7:55]. ...

~serapha~

[Admin1]

Awesome story!  I'll be following that one closely!

[gshen]

I read the article, and one question is bothering me:

Why, if the seal has somehow been dated to "538-445BCE", are they calling it a First Temple era seal??? Isn't anything after the return from Babylon Second Temple era?

 

[archaeologist]

that is a good question and i would have to look at herr articles and publications to provide an answer.  the news stories won't provide much information.

i read finkelstein's (and company) report onher discoveries and it was a useless piece of trash that only denied her claims simply because she disagreed with their theories and has shown their theories are wrong.

finkelstein, et al,   report is a very one-sided biased opinion based upon what i have heard was a cursory examination.  their opinions are influenced by their own personal agendas and they accept certain other investigations without question and use them to try and diminish Mazar's work.

(source:Tel Aviv Journal of the Institute of Arch. of t.A. univ. vol. 34 #9 2007)

[Chris Weimer]

A little too hopeful, are we?

Biblical Archaeology Society: Seal Controversy: From Temech to Shlomit

[archaeologist]

not at all,  she made a mistake or so it seems still doesn't  disprove the bible

[Chris Weimer]

not at all,  she made a mistake or so it seems still doesn't  disprove the bible

What are you talking about "disprove the Bible"? Who mentioned that? I was referring to the OP who jumped the gun. Besides, even if Mazar had read it correctly (not sure how she could make such an novice mistake, but whatever, we all do at some point in time), it doesn't "prove" the Bible. Chiefly because there's nothing in the "Bible" to prove. The Bible is actually a collection of individual books and smaller collections. Individual parts of the Bible are obviously in error, but as a whole, proving "the Bible wrong" is like proving Shakespeare wrong. It's fatuous.

[archaeologist]

i will disagree with you, and please procvide credible links and sources, discoveries (NOT interpretation nor conjecture, or inference) that the following is true:

Individual parts of the Bible are obviously in error

[archaeologist]

she may have made a mistake but the seal is still a biblical name, offering evidence that the name the Bible used was known at that time and that the Bible used it properly,

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202064580435&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

The critics, including the European scholar Peter van der Veen, as well as the epigrapher Ryan Byrne, co-director of the Tel Dan excavations, suggested in Internet blogs that the correct reading of the seal is actually "Shlomit," also a biblical name.