[Phlap]

Now call me cynical but I see this as a money maker and little else. They have no real evidence he was ever there. But if it covers their expenses and they make a few bucks John won't mind I'm sure.

[kinsman redeemer]

he saw a head carved into the wall — the top of the figure he believes depicts John.

This part make sense to me.

[basil]

Actually, I'm not quite so cynical as you. We may never know for sure if this is the actual cave of John the Baptist--but I find the whole idea intriguing. Imagine spending 5 years on this project! It's certainly sounds as if it's a very interesting and important find, regardless if it's determined not to be John's cave.

[Asclepius]

During an exclusive tour of the cave by The Associated Press, archaeologists presented wall carvings they said tell the story of the fiery New Testament preacher, as well as a stone they believe was used for ceremonial foot washing.

So what they mean is that they found a cave with a cistern that seems to have been used as a place to venerate John the Baptist. But John himself would have had nothing to do with the place.

John and the others of his sect--Galileans, mainly, who opposed the Pharisees and their practice of purification by means of elaborate mikvot, or cisterns within the holy city--preferred ritual purification in "living waters", i.e. rivers, streams etc., outside of the city in the wilderness where John and other baptists or immersers lived. (And there were many besides John.)

[Designed]

The New Testament, the historical documenent, says that John BAPTISED people in the Jordan, at Aenon, near Salim, because there was MUCH water there. Much water is required because the Greek 'baptizo' means to dip, plunge, immerse, or overwhelm in an element -- in this case water. John did not, so far as we know, anoint (Gr. Cheo) anyone. This is just a money-making scheme.