The little seal that Eilat Mazar recently publicized has received an awful lot of attention. Several commentators apparently swallow hook, line, and sinker Mazar’s almost impossible reading תמח and the entirely speculative connection of that תמח to the תמח mentioned in Ezra 2:53 // Nehemiah 7:55. Wikipedia user “WLRoss” inserted the following into the Wikipedia article on Solomon’s temple:

In January 2008 a temple seal dated to 538-445 BCE, showing Babylonian priests worshiping the god Sin, was found bearing the name Temech in Hebrew. According to the Book of Nehemiah, the Temech family were servants of the First Temple who were exiled in 586 BCE. According to archaeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar “The seal of the Temech family gives us a direct connection between archaeology and the biblical sources”. [3]

I edited this part of the article to read:

In January 2008, Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar publicized a seal that she dated to 538-445 BCE, showing two individuals worshiping at an altar perhaps dedicated to the Babylonian god [[Sin (mythology)|Sin]]. The seal bore a personal name, which Mazar read as “Temech.” The [[Book of Nehemiah]] lists the Temech family among the servants of the First Temple who were exiled in 586 BCE. According to Mazar, “The seal of the Temech family gives us a direct connection between archaeology and the biblical sources”.[3] However, ”Maraav” editor Christopher Rollston and several other specialists in ancient Hebrew epigraphy argue that Mazar misread the seal. Mazar’s reading, “Temech,” depends on reading the seal’s letters right to left, as Hebrew is normally written. However, seals were almost always inscribed in mirror image, such that the correct reading would appear after pressing the seal into clay. Therefore, the name on the seal is probably “Shelomith” rather than “Temech.”[4] Even if one accepts Mazar’s reading “Temech,” however, no evidence has yet been presented that would link the seal’s “Temech” with the biblical “Temech.”

I also edited the “Talk” page to explain the changes, and to suggest that the entire mention of the seal be deleted from the “Solomon’s Temple” entry, because

[e]ven if Mazar’s reading is correct (which is quite improbable, as all leading epigraphers who have spoken on the matter think she’s wrong), and even if the seal’s “Temech” was the same “Temech” mentioned in the book of Nehemiah (which cannot be proven; if you found a nametag reading “Hi, I’m George,” in an archaeological layer dated to 1950-2050 AD, how would you know to which “George” it belonged?), that still has no archaeological bearing on Solomon’s temple. The iconography on the seal certainly doesn’t suggest Solomon’s temple, but Babylonian worship. So even though I edited the material instead of deleting it, I think deleting it is actually the best course.

I’ll have more to say about the Mazar seal later on, as I find the seal itself and the public attention it’s receiving most fascinating. But right now, I’m off to check out the 40%-off sale at my local Borders Express, which is going out of business. (And no wonder; it’s just a block away from a freestanding Borders. But I digress.)