First off, thanks Mr. Goranson for taking the time (unlike Neil) to actually read about the bulla discovery by Eilat Mazar.
Furthermore, (unlike Neil), I actually read the article in
BAR by Eilat Mazar as well as your link with the rebuttal by Rollston. So, I would like to discuss one point of Rollston that I disagree with.
Rollston wrote: "
Finally, I wish to emphasize that it is possible that there is not enough space after the yod for an additional letter. Along those lines, Lawrence Mykytiuk has indeed mentioned to me the fact that he is not convinced there is enough space for a letter after the yod."...Rollston
However, I respectfully disagree, having seen the pictures of the bulla, I believe there is indeed room enough for one more letter after the yod.
Be as that may, Rollston is missing the larger point of Mazar's claim. "
Whether or not the bulla we found in the Ophel excavations is the bulla of the prophet Isaiah, it remains, nevertheless, a unique and fantastic discovery."...Eilat Mazar BAR March 2018 pg. 66.
Eilat Mazar is being too modest, she did excellent work and entitled to place her marker as she best sees fit.
I generally accept the view that any qualified archeologists that makes a discovery is free (nay obligated) to deposit their best theory as to its significance. It is up to others to prove or disprove the conjecture. With that in mind, Rollston did not disprove Mazar's findings. Because Eilat Mazar never claimed it was proof of the existence of Isaiah or claimed that the bulla was owned by Isaiah. What she did do is point out that the bulla was found in the same immediate area that a bulla of King Hezekiah was found (among 22 other bullae). She admits she is speculating as to what the missing letters on the bulla could be but there is room enough to fill in the blanks with
nvy which means "prophet" in Hebrew.
Members on this forum who do not show proper respect for her credentials deserve some criticism by the grown-ups on this forum, don't you think?
John T
