05-08-2007, 02:49 PM
The article on it in the Guardian says that the archaeologists in charge are basing the claim on the "quality" of the sarcophagus, which "meant it could only have been made for Herod."
[url:2w2botvf]http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2074822,00.html[/url]
That is emphatically NOT good archaeology! And rosettes? Please, there's nothing that special about rosettes. This identification with Herod will probably be accepted by the public and people yearning to connect the Bible to archaeology, but most specialists will see how thin the argument is and reject it.
[url:2w2botvf]http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2074822,00.html[/url]
That is emphatically NOT good archaeology! And rosettes? Please, there's nothing that special about rosettes. This identification with Herod will probably be accepted by the public and people yearning to connect the Bible to archaeology, but most specialists will see how thin the argument is and reject it.
L. M. Anderson
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.brown.edu/joukowskyinstitute">www.brown.edu/joukowskyinstitute
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.brown.edu/joukowskyinstitute">www.brown.edu/joukowskyinstitute
