Skip to comments.
King Herod's tomb discovered, Israeli university says
YNet ^
| May 7, 2007
Posted on 05/07/2007 3:40:03 PM PDT by Alouette
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
To: Alouette
When can I spit on the grave of the Edomite/Nabatean collaborator?
41
posted on
05/07/2007 6:26:50 PM PDT
by
rmlew
(It's WW4 and the Left wants to negotiate with Islamists who want to kill us , for their mutual ends)
To: Thinkin' Gal
The fact is, the real tomb is under the department store they started.
42
posted on
05/07/2007 6:29:51 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(Time heals all wounds, particularly when they're not yours. Profile updated May 7, 2007.)
To: Sherman Logan; Polybius
43
posted on
05/07/2007 6:30:09 PM PDT
by
rmlew
(It's WW4 and the Left wants to negotiate with Islamists who want to kill us , for their mutual ends)
To: SunkenCiv; aculeus; dighton
The fact is, the real tomb is under the department store they started. Didn't Dodi Fayed make a documentary about that? ;-)
To: Alouette
Herodium
To: Ruy Dias de Bivar; cdbull23
What year, then, would we say Jesus was born? I always thought it was simply 0*** There is no such thing as the year 0 in the Julian or Gregorian calendar.
To: AmusedBystander
That’s really a no-win situation for the gospels. Either Jesus matches the incumbent religious symbolism too well, or too poorly. No pleasing some folks.
To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
48
posted on
05/08/2007 5:41:28 AM PDT
by
SJackson
(Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die, R. Garroway, UNWRA director, 8/58)
To: Alouette
More proof that the bible is accurate, historical documentation.
49
posted on
05/08/2007 6:33:27 AM PDT
by
Manic_Episode
(Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps...)
To: Alouette
50
posted on
05/08/2007 6:34:29 AM PDT
by
RetiredArmy
(America has lost its mind and is on its last days as a free country & Republic.)
To: SJackson
To: Deut28
A wholesale massacre of all the Jewish children in a specific town is something that the Jews would remember, not just Christians. Matthew WAS a Jew. Bad memory?
52
posted on
05/08/2007 9:44:33 AM PDT
by
Sam Ketcham
(Amnesty means vote dilution, & increased taxes to bring us down to the world poverty level.)
To: Alouette
There is no mention of any such massacre in any other historical accounts, such as Josephus or the Talmud. Demographic clues from first century Palestine reveal that Bethlehem was a small village, with a population between three hundred and a thousand. Experts estimate that, at any given time, the number of babies under the age of two would be only between seven and twenty and only half of those would be boys. So few numbers alone may be the reason why Josephus does not mention the murders.
It must be remembered that Josephus is a Jewish historian. For him to record the infanticide, he would have to supply an explanation as to why Herod should do such a deed. This would require him to record the claim of the magi, that Jesus was born "king of the Jews". Josephus and other Jews would no doubt prefer to stay clear of such a discourse.
53
posted on
05/08/2007 10:57:29 AM PDT
by
Between the Lines
(I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations. So should you.)
To: MeanWestTexan
The assumed population of Bethlehem was about 1,200. Infants in a town that size, in that age, is something like 1/35. Thats about 34 children. Thats bumpkis in Herods bodycount.
I read an analysis years ago that factored in everything from seasonal population migrations to infant mortality rates at the time. They also factored in the fact that the residents of the southern edge of the "killing area" would have had at least some warning of the impending slaughter and would have had a chance to hide their children or flee. At least a few would have succeeded. The analysis put the final number of dead children at 18-25. Tragic, but not particularly noteworthy in that era. Large villages routinely lost more children than that to disease outbreaks.
It's not all that suprising that there is no mention of the slaughter in the history books.
To: Between the Lines
When you're looking at the population estimates for the massacre, it's important to remember that Herod ordered the deaths of all boys in and around Bethlehem. When you factor in the population of the farms and valleys, the base starting population climbs to nearly 2000 people. Factor in infant mortality and other factors, and you generally end up with a number in the high teens or low twenties. The great question is how they defined "around". Was it a days walk? A days ride? A half days walk? Nobody knows.
To: Alouette
Josephus tells us that Herod was so cruel that on his deathbed he ordered thousands of the region’s most prominent citizens be arrested and executed immediately upon his death - so that the millions who hated him would have something to mourn upon his death. Very wicked dude. (btw, this final order was not carried out after he died.)
56
posted on
05/08/2007 11:36:02 AM PDT
by
joebuck
To: Between the Lines
It must be remembered that Josephus is a Jewish historian. For him to record the infanticide, he would have to supply an explanation as to why Herod should do such a deed. This would require him to record the claim of the magi, that Jesus was born "king of the Jews". Josephus and other Jews would no doubt prefer to stay clear of such a discourse. Actually, Josephus was paid by the family of Herod to write the history. He would not have recorded anything that was not favorable to them.
57
posted on
05/08/2007 1:39:20 PM PDT
by
Alouette
(Learned Mother of Zion)
To: cdbull23
I always thought it was simply 0...The year is an ordinal. A.D. stands for "Anno Domini," "Year of Our Lord." So it goes from "the First Year of Our Lord" to "the Two Thousand and Seventh Year of Our Lord."
58
posted on
05/08/2007 1:45:27 PM PDT
by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
To: Alouette
“Actually, Josephus was paid by the family of Herod to write the history. He would not have recorded anything that was not favorable to them.”
I did not know that. Learn something new here every day. Thanks.
59
posted on
05/08/2007 3:11:32 PM PDT
by
MeanWestTexan
(Kol Hakavod Fred Thompson)
To: newguy357; Alouette; rmlew; Sherman Logan
Josephus records that Herod ordered the killing of the Hasmonean dynasty (who belonged to the priestly Sadducean class), not all Jewish children. Yes, and a man who would order the killing of the Hasmonean dynasty couldn't possibly order the killing of children a second time.
The killings did not involve merely "Hasmoneans". They involved the executions Herod's own Hasmonean princess wife, Mariamme, and the executions of Herod's two half-Hasmonean sons, Antipater and Aristobulus.
The cruelty brought about the reported quote from Augustus that "It is better to be Herod's pig than his son".
After Herod's death, his territory was divided by sons not of Hasmonean descent but only by the dictates of Augustus who made it clear the Augustus, not Herod's will, determined who would rule what.
Herod Archelaus, son of Herod by his Samaritan wife Malthace became Ethnarch of Judea, Samaria and Idumaea but was so cruel that, according to Josephus, "tread not only Jews but even Samaritans so brutally that both peoples sent embassies to accuse him before Caesar, with the result that in the ninth year of his rule he was banished to Gaul and his property transfered to Caesar's treasury."
Herod Antipas, full brother of Archelaus, became Tetrach of Galilee and Peraea, the Jewish portion of Trans-Jordan. This was the Herod that had John the Baptist executed and returned Jesus to Pontius Pilate.
Herod Philip, son of Herod and Cleopatra of Jerusalem, was made Terarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis and reportedly was a just ruler and a good administrator. Since so few Jews lived in his assigned territory, Herod Philip became the first Jewish ruler to have his portrait on Jewish coins.
60
posted on
05/10/2007 8:45:40 PM PDT
by
Polybius
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson