In my recent post www.abovetopsecret.com...
regarding the 20 or so Temples around Mount Hermon and the
connection to 'The Watchers' i noted that many of the worn and battered scavenged stones used in the Roman Temples were of a raised relief boss, or
'pillow' type masonry, including examples found at the summit ruins.
This type of Ashlar masonry in Israel will always get labelled as 'Herodian Masonry', for reasons which i shall make apparant and also challenge.
First we should look at outstanding examples of this masonry style, first at the Temple Mount of Baalbek, then at the Temple Mount of Jerusalem;
So above Baalbek of course, supposedly built by the Romans, with the 'Herodian Masonry' seen at the corner, and below similar found at the Temple
Mount, directly attributed to Herod.
Right away we have a problem with this comparison, Herod certainly didn't construct the Temple Mount at Baalbek, yet the architectural style
attributed to him is present there, not to mention all the Temples around Mount Hermon which he wouldn't have gone anywhere near for religious
This 'problem' is however the coverall explanation for any number of anomalies, for example the circa 600 ton block at the base of the Western
A quick check on the raised relief style and thats understood as Herodian, and those curious rectangular indentations, given as carved in the middle
ages to support water cistern architecture, despite examples of the same at Baalbek and all around Mount Hermon scavenged for Roman Temples;
One needs to look at known Herodian sites such as Herodium itself, were he built his Palce and Tomb, and Masada, to see that Herod actually built with
modest sized stones, not particularly well carved and without raised relief, even in the prestigious monuments there, which thus lack this 'Herodian
Masonry', so with that it mind it might seem easy to propose an earlier origin for that style than Herod and the Romans.
Except at this point one runs into a very large and well constructed stone wall that checks such speculation, this is one other major construction
attributed to Herod at Hebron, the enclosure around the Tomb of the Patriarchs.
Thus one finds the same manner of stone and construction as at the Temple Mount (and Baalbek) and the circular reasoning is that Herod built the
Temple Mount, the same style is found at Hebron, thus Herod also built that, there isn't actually any source linking him to it except for this
comparison of style, and as i already mentioned that is not found at well attributed Herodian construction sites, thus all is perhaps not lost.
This is especially so when Josephus writing shortly after the time of Herod in discussing Hebron doesn't mention Herod at all and attributes the
monument to the time of Abraham;
Josephus (BJ, IV, ix, 7) speaks of the monuments (mnemeia) of Abraham and his posterity which "are shown to this very time in that small city (i.e.
in Hebron); the fabric of which monuments are of the most excellent marble and wrought after the most excellent manner"; and in another place he
writes of Isaac being buried by his sons with his wife in Hebron where they had a monument belonging to them from their forefathers
So curiously Josephus considers the enclosure around a couple of thousand years old in his day, dated to the time of the forefathers of the
Patriarchs. The limestone is of very good quality and hard, described as similar to marble, and it certainly withstands the ravages of time well.
The space containing the traditional tombs is a great quadrangle 197 ft. in length (Northwest to Southeast) and 111 ft. in breadth (Northeast to
Southwest). It is enclosed by a massive wall of great blocks of limestone, very hard and akin to marble. The walls which are between 8 and 9 ft thick
are of solid masonry throughout. .
It's a very curious construction, built seemingly without entrance until one was later forced, i think it does provide the key to understand who
constructed similar masonry at the Temple Mounts of Baalbek and Jerusalem, and around Mount Hermon, and i don't think it was Herod, in fact even this
explanation would be more likely than that;
Mukaddasi speaks (circa 985) of the strong fortress around the tombs of the patriarchs built of great squared stones, the work of Jinns, i.e. of
However in my opinion these most likely would relate to the Sons of Anak and the Nephilim
"Nevertheless, the people who live in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large; and moreover, we saw the descendants of Anak
Numbers 13:31, 33
"But the men who had gone up with him said, 'We are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us.....There also we saw the
Nephilim and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight
"Now he gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh a portion among the sons of Judah, according to the command of the Lord to Joshua, namely, Kiriath-arba,
Arba being the father of Anak (that is Hebron). And Caleb drove out from there the three sons of Anak: Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai, the children of
The case that can be made from the bible that Hebron was most closely related to the descendants of the Watchers, the Nephilim, or at the very least
those who considered themselves such, and thus they would have had a concern with the area around Mount Hermon, and seemingly the Temple Mounts of
Jerusalem and Baalbek, and thus may have reconstructed and rebuilt upon even older sites associated with the first 'Watchers'.
Hebron lies less than 20 miles south of Jerusalem. At least three generations of Anakim had been ruling in Hebron prior. Scholars disagree as to
the exact length of a generation. To use a conservative, and by no means the exact length, number of forty years as a generation would place the
return of the Nephilim at least 120 years prior to the conquest. As Scripture clearly indicates in the following chapters, Canaan is ruled by a number
of Nephilim related kings.
Though Hebron was established prior to Abraham, it seems the Nephilim, specifically Arba, had taken control of the city, and claimed it as their
capital. At this time, thus, it was known as the city of Arba
If then the enclosure at Hebron dates to some time before the conquest of Caanan by Israel, it would seem probable the Nephilim saw the related caves
in a differant context rather than as tombs of the patriarchs, of which there is no mention in Joshua, it being a later post-conquest tradition.
edit on 24-10-2012 by Kantzveldt because: (no reason given)