Proof (Perhaps) of the Existence of Isaiah

[neilgodfrey]

Once again, Neil criticizes not on the evidence (for he cares not about the merits) but on the religious belief of the archaeologist.

Oh John T. You're being mischievous again. Nowhere did I criticize the find on the basis of the religious belief of Eilat Mazar. Really! Is your reading comprehension that poor?

To my knowledge I have never criticized anyone's research on the basis of the religious belief of its author.

What I did do was tiresomely repeat, as if it needed repeating, the problem of religious bias (not belief) in interpreting finds in archaeology, a subject that is the target of criticism in probably hundreds of publications by scholars (including other archaeologists) with particular focus on the problem of that bias in what is called "biblical archaeology".

Bias and Belief. I know they begin with a B but don't let that mislead you. They are spelled differently, pronounced differently, and have different meanings.

[John T]

Discovered by none other than Eliat Mazar, of course. The archaeologist who proudly works with the Bible in one hand guiding the trowel in the other. The archaeologist who has a reputation for digging up proofs of the Bible. And who published this find in a journal dedicated to proving the Bible through archaeology.

I'll wait for sober analysis by serious critics but won't be holding my breath till they're done. Till then I guess the logical conclusion must be that Isaiah the prophet was a Palestinian.

Not long before they'll turn up an inscription "Jonah son of Amittai who was swallowed by the great fish and lived, Greeting..."

Please do go on about how your post was in no way a smear against Eilat Mazar or Biblical Archaeology Review.
Well, we are waiting.

[neilgodfrey]

Discovered by none other than Eliat Mazar, of course. The archaeologist who proudly works with the Bible in one hand guiding the trowel in the other. The archaeologist who has a reputation for digging up proofs of the Bible. And who published this find in a journal dedicated to proving the Bible through archaeology.

I'll wait for sober analysis by serious critics but won't be holding my breath till they're done. Till then I guess the logical conclusion must be that Isaiah the prophet was a Palestinian.

Not long before they'll turn up an inscription "Jonah son of Amittai who was swallowed by the great fish and lived, Greeting..."

Please do go on about how your post was in no way a smear against Eilat Mazar or Biblical Archaeology Review.
Well, we are waiting.

I repent. E. Mazar is most objective without a scintilla of an inclination to allow her religious beliefs influence in any way her interpretation of her finds. BAR is the most scholarly and neutral of all archaeological journals that would under no circumstances select articles on the basis of any particular religious viewpoint. Its editorial policy is to advocate a totally disinterested approach to all archaeological finds relating to areas mentioned in the Bible.

May god strike me dead if I tell a lie.

[John T]

Discovered by none other than Eliat Mazar, of course. The archaeologist who proudly works with the Bible in one hand guiding the trowel in the other. The archaeologist who has a reputation for digging up proofs of the Bible. And who published this find in a journal dedicated to proving the Bible through archaeology.

I'll wait for sober analysis by serious critics but won't be holding my breath till they're done. Till then I guess the logical conclusion must be that Isaiah the prophet was a Palestinian.

Not long before they'll turn up an inscription "Jonah son of Amittai who was swallowed by the great fish and lived, Greeting..."

Please do go on about how your post was in no way a smear against Eilat Mazar or Biblical Archaeology Review.
Well, we are waiting.

I repent. E. Mazar is most objective without a scintilla of an inclination to allow her religious beliefs influence in any way her interpretation of her finds. BAR is the most scholarly and neutral of all archaeological journals that would under no circumstances select articles on the basis of any particular religious viewpoint. Its editorial policy is to advocate a totally disinterested approach to all archaeological finds relating to areas mentioned in the Bible.

May god strike me dead if I tell a lie.

Neil will be missed, his insolence..not so much.