Because it never gets old (apparently), Reuters has published another one of those articles in which Eilat Mazar argues with the opponent of the day whether the Bible and archaeology go hand in hand.
Mazar says “the Bible offers a “core of reality”: We’ve got a fantastic 10th century fortification line that indicates a central, powerful regime. The Bible tells us there was such a king at this time, and his name was Solomon. Why ignore it?”
Raphael Greenberg, an Israeli archaeologist from Tel Aviv University, says “Archaeology cannot prove or disprove the Bible. A name that matches that of a person in the Bible can only be taken so far — it’s just a name.”
There’s nothing new in this article, so why did Reuters bother? I am inclined to think that people just can’t resist talking about controversy in Jerusalem, whether it’s about building some apartment buildings in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood or who ruled Jerusalem in the the 10th century BCE. If it says Jerusalem and controversy people will read it.