A 2,600-year-old clay seal uncovered intact in Jerusalem dig

Quotes from the article in The Jerusalem Post:

"A 2,600 year old clay seal impression, or bulla, bearing the name Gedaliah ben Pashur has recently been uncovered completely intact during archaeological excavations in Jerusalem's ancient City of David, located just below the walls of the Old City near the Dung Gate."

"According to Dr. Eilat Mazar of the Hebrew University who is leading the dig, this is the first time in the annals of Israeli archeology that two clay bullae with two Biblical names that appear in the same verse in the Bible have been unearthed in the same location."

"Both bullae, clearly preserved, measuring 1 cm. in diameter each and lettered in ancient Hebrew, were found among the debris of the destruction of the First Temple period (8th to 6th centuries BCE)."

link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710405007&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Any archeological work in Israel, and especially Jerusalem, is fraught with political issues.

The Dung Gate? THE DUNG GATE??1!?

:rofl:

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

Everything "unclean" used them - honey wagons, corpse disposal, beggars and people with leprosy, etc.

I am not sure what you mean....

There are distinct schools of Archaeology that hold conflicting view on the historicity of the Old Testament (TANAKH) i.e., the Sheffield School whose scholars, such as Davies and Thompson, represent an extreme which views the Biblical stories as produced practically out of whole cloth as late as the 3rd century BCE; and, on the other end, scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen who hold strong claims for the historicity of the Old Testament, including the Patriarchal narratives.

Archeologists such as William Dever and Israel Finkelstein fall into a mid-range, with Dever asserting that there is a great deal of evidence for the historicity to the OT accounts, and for their ancient roots (but no evidence for the Patriarchal narratives) while Finkelstein argues that OT was essentially composed around the time of Josiah's reforms, in an effort to provide support for the predominance of Jerusalem in Israelite politics/religion.

Politically speaking, there is a great deal of sensitivity in the region over discoveries that either support or weaken territorial claims.

Fraudulent activity in the antiquities market has not helped clarify things.

I have actually done archaeology in Israel and it is quite unnerving when there are major discoveries because of the battle for historical ownership of the land.

but I understand what you are saying, and have read pretty thoroughly in Dever, Finkelstein, Kitchen, Hoffmeier, etc.,(is that like sayiong "I did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night? :D ) and I recognize the sensitivity of the issues involved.

There is at least one guy of the Sheffield School (name escapes me at the moment) who claims that ALL Israeli archeology is aimed at providing support for land claims, and utilizes dishonest scholarship. He has been roundly criticized, and his views appear anti-semitic (specifically: anti-Jewish).

I edited my original answer to you to further clarify what i was saying. :hi:

:dunce:
rocknation

that the names are mentioned in Jeremiah in the appropriate historical context. There can be more than one person with the same name of course, but the time and location and the presence of two names narrow down the possibilities a lot. One would expect further discoveries as that excavation progresses.

I understand why so many Old Testament scholars feel that the narratives are created out of whole cloth, largely because the archaeological record doesn't match the accepted timeline. What I don't understand is why the timeline is considered sacrosanct.

I live in a town of about 600 people and I know of two others who have the same name I do. If I could go back or forward a hundred years I'd bet there would be more than three. I would not find similar or idential names evidence of anything at all.

and whether it was associated with any specific govenmental function or relationship. That can lower the odds a bit. Plus, material culture remains often result in conclusions based on inductive logic that is open to varied interpretations.

Still, any archaeological discoveries in the Near East that have the potential to impact the ongoing fight over "rights to ownership"
over contested areas must be dealt with in the most open fashion. Forgeries of bullae, ossuaries, inscriptions, etc., are all too common.

:rofl: :hi: