Gamera

Well, if it is the tomb of Herod, the discovery of the bones is hardly necessary. Nobody would build such an elaborate tomb to a fictional king. How they have determined that the tomb is Herod's, without being circular, that I don't know as I haven't been following the archeological evidence.

Gamera

If James Bond's tomb was found nearby, then yes, indeedeedo.

And of course some skeptics argued that Herod was like James Bond. A fiction. They seem to be rebutted.

EthnAlln

WHAT!!! I'm not disputing you Gamera, but that's a belief so bizarre I find it difficult to credit that anyone actually held it. Anyway, if anyone did actually believe that, they would be discredited.

I saw this story on Tagesschau today, and the archaeologist interviewed appeared to be completely convinced that this was indeed Herod's tomb. But the kind of evidence that impresses the layperson (inscriptions, etc.) was, he admitted, not present. I'm willng to defer to his expertise, but it would have been nice to see a name or a date chiseled there somewhere.

http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/mel...F1_BAB,00.html

From that story, there is a disquieting note:

"The discovery also threatens to exacerbate the political tension between Israelis and Palestinians, since the site lies in the occupied West Bank. After the archaeologists' press conference a spokesman from the Jewish settlement Gusch Ezion near Herodium spoke over the armed forces radio. According to Schaul Goldstein, the discovery is a "new proof" of the tie between Gusch Ezion, the Jewish People, and Jerusalem."

Terrific! After 2000 years in his grave Herod may manage to inspire yet another massacre.

Boro Nut

Sort of. There's a sign above the entrance which translates "No innocents beyond this point. You're all dead, according to our records".

Boro Nut

Cege

There doesn't seem to be evidence that Herod was inside the tomb, since there are no bones and nothing that Josephus described as what Herod was wearing when buried (purple cloth, diadem, crown, etc).

The assumption thus far is that Herod must have been buried inside the 8-foot tomb after his death but marauding zealots later broke inside, broke apart whatever was in there, and removed bones, diadem, etc.

Can archeology do better right now than assert that it's the tomb of Herod because it's in the right place to be so, even if physical evidence is missing?

spamandham

The body rose from the dead of course. That seems to have been quite common back then. :Cheeky:

Chuck Rightmire

Somehow, I think this argument is fallacious from the beginning. There is great joy in the Christian community because the finding of the tomb would prove the existence of Herod. From my history, I didn't think there was much doubt that at least two Herods were kings in Palestine of the time. And again, why is it that important. The existence of Herod only indicates that the story tellers of the time needed some time and place in which to locate the story. It doesn't make the story true. I've seen novels about LA and New York City and New Orleans and Miami that mention real people, but that doesn't make the story the novelist is telling any more factual.:Cheeky:

Roger Pearse

The climate changed in late Antiquity. In North Africa the cities of the province used to export corn. Now they are all in basically desert-edge areas. There were hippopotami in the Nile delta, and the papyrus plant, which today only grows in the Sudan.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Nazaroo

What a crappy looking coffin. Herod really got burned by the mortician crew. And he probably overpaid too.

Nazaroo

Seriosly, Roger, is there no papyrus left in lower Egypt?

can you confirm that?