The press has gotten the story!

Apparently, the press release about the temple and the earthquake has reached the press, and all morning I’ve been talking to radio, TV and newspaper people

For the item in the Jerusalem Post, see here.

For Maariv (in Hebrew) see here.

here is the story on the Arutz Sheva/Israel National News website.

Just to remind you – for what I actually said – see the blog yesterday…

Aren

3 thoughts on “The press has gotten the story!

  1. Mr. Why

    Hello,
    I was wondering about the “love for headlines” in your excavations.
    There is no argue that Tel-Zafi’ has great finds hidden within its belly, but what’s been fed to the press is less than responsible (like: http://www.cet.ac.il/mikranet/host.asp?Asp=403&FID=43810&nOwnerID=0&bFillMsgFields=False&nFillterUserID=0&Index=08md&sSearchText= …. the inscription of so-called Goliath).
    The eagerness for Biblical comparisment is a known flaw.
    The criteria for a Phoenician temple is much debatable. there are many other options for such a structure which you found (A remarkable find, by the way).
    The breakdown is a breakdown, and the building is a building – and it seems that the main context to Biblical stories is faith and less science.
    The 10-year finds are incredible. the work is amazing. and many archeologists can learn a lesson from you, prof. Yet still, one should be cautios while talking to the over-eager press.
    I would love to hear a respond.
    jon

    Like

    1. arenmaeir

      Jon,
      Hi! Appreciate your questions. Yes, I do like to get the press interested, and sometimes do like “teasing” – it is a good way to get interest. With that said, I do try to combine good scholarship with “tickles”. In the case of the so called Goliath inscription, our first interpretation of the etymology of the names did in fact strongly connect with the name Goliath. Not that we found Goilath – but a name quite like it. Only later, once we saw that the traditionally accepted etymology of the name Goliath was incorrect (as explained in the article about the inscription in BASOR), we revised the interpretation, indicating that there were IE names on the inscription (nevertheless, quite similar to the general family of names such as Goliath).
      As to temple – it is a Philistine temple – not a Phoenician – and as I explained in a post – there are good arguments to claim this. The fact that it can be explained in relationship to the biblical text – that is not a problem – unless one does not want to relate to the biblical text as an ANE text. Needless to say, this has to be done with a strong basis – I believe I did.

      Best
      Aren

      Like

Comments are closed.