tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post6583403419374501255..comments2009-09-21T15:15:44.228-05:00Todd Bolenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06156730661243501832tbolen91@bibleplaces.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-64021803835651855872009-09-21T15:15:44.228-05:002009-09-21T15:15:44.228-05:00Hey, I recognize that place! We stopped there for a few minutes last September on the way to Banias. The stonework (especially on the earlier construction) is quite impressive.Eugenehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02354808645956755681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-73189405722753094252009-09-21T13:43:53.606-05:002009-09-21T13:43:53.606-05:00Ray - it means that Omrit is another candidate the site of Herod&#39;s temple. It&#39;s not hard to see why the excavators of Omrit would desire to connect their site with Herod. The 2nd century A.D. Roman temple on the other side of the valley at Kadesh gets very little attention. But if Omrit is Herodian, tourists come, funding is easier to raise, and journalists are interested. The case, of course, has to be made from the written sources (minimal, in this case, I believe) and archaeological work. Rosenberg makes the point that Josephus locates the temple &quot;near the place called Paneion [today, Banias].&quot; How &quot;near&quot; did he mean? On the archaeological side, the issue is whether one temple or the other can be securely dated to the late 1st century B.C. We&#39;ll see.Todd Bolenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06156730661243501832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-23968771302087518112009-09-21T13:03:19.257-05:002009-09-21T13:03:19.257-05:00Does this mean that Herod did not have a temple at Banyas and that the artist&#39;s impression we see there is not so?<br />Ray Beattie. UKraybeattiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09810229504682725894noreply@blogger.com