| TaborBlog |
| “All things biblical” from the Hebrew Bible to Early Christianity in the Roman World |
There was a very informative and balanced interview with Princeton Theological Seminar Professor, James Charlesworth, in the Jerusalem Post yesterday. Charlesworth sits down with editor David Horovitz and talks about the aftermath of the Jewish Burial/Talpiot Tomb conference held in Jerusalem, January 13-16th, as well as potential ideas for the future.
On Monday, January 21, 2008, Eric Meyers of Duke University and Jodi Magness of UNC-Chapel Hill issued a public statement signed by eleven other scholars who had attended the recent Princeton Theological Seminary Symposium on “Jewish Views of the Afterlife and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism: Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context,” held in Jerusalem, January 13-17th. Readers can find the original statement on Mark Goodacre’s Weblog, NTGateway, and an updated version with a few significant changes, at the Dept. of Religion Blog at Duke [Mark Goodacre just wrote me that he has replaced the original with the updated version as of 1/25/08, so I have saved a copy of the original here: OriginalStatement, so readers can properly follow this post] The main purpose of the declaration was to strongly deny any media reports that most of the scholars attending the conference had concluded that the Talpiot tomb might possible be the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. To the contrary, the signatories affirmed that they “either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly unlikely.” Although the three main stories published on this subject, in the Jerusalem Post, TIME, and in the HaAretz, all recorded that attendees at the conference were divided, those who signed onto the Meyers/Magness statement charged that a “spin” had been put on the whole conference by filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, through a press release, and an orchestrated ending involving a statement by Ruth Gat, widow of the late Joseph Gat, excavator of the tomb in 1980.
My own report on the conference, published on my Blog on January 20st, and now posted also on the Biblical Archaeology Society site, echoed a similar assessment of the results, namely, that most of the participants remained unconvinced that the identification case had been made.
However, quite signifcantly, the Meyers/Magness statement contains much more than this corrective caveat regarding the media. It goes on, in the body, to outline in summary form the reasons that the signatories in fact reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to the Jesus family.
As one who has given considerable thought and effort to all the arguments involved, pro and con, regarding the potential identification of the tomb with Jesus, I was quite surprised to see that the statement, so far as I can judge, contained some significant errors that serve to undermine its force. I have been assured by Meyers and Magness that all those signing the statement agree with it wholly, which puzzled me even more, since I have talked to three or four of those who signed on and unless the statement reflects a change of mind, it is not reflective of their views. It is possible that people signed on in order to support the general point of the statement, knowing that details can always be sorted out in various ways, but it is unfortunate, I think, that readers of the statement will have the impression that since these experts have signed on, everything that follows is agreed upon as established.
Without debating all the complex issues upon which this comprehensive summary statement touches upon, let me focus on just four points that I think are questionable. Here I will quote the statement verbatim, and follow with some observations.
1. A statistical analysis of the relatively common names engraved on the ossuaries leaves no doubt that the probability of the Talpiot tomb belonging to Jesus’ family is virtually nil if the Mariamene named on one of the ossuaries is not Mary Magdalene.
This is decidedly not the case, as has now been pointed out by several statisticians who have already commented on the Duke University and Goodacre Web sites. Based on the calculations of Elliot and Kilty, whose paper is up on the Web, and as discussed by Camil Fuchs, who along with Andrey Feuerverger, sat on the panel dealing with statistics. The name cluster, even leaving Mariamene out entirely, with no assumptions regarding Mary Magdalene, show a probability factor of .48. This result is far from “virtually nil,” in fact it is very close to 1/2, meaning if we had two tombs to examine, one of them would be the Jesus tomb. My understanding is that Fuchs will clarify this in his published paper.
A bit of forgotten history here: It is interesting to note that when the 1996 story broke on the Talpiot tomb by the BBC TV special and a front page story in the London Sunday Times, there was a brief discussion on the Orion Dead Sea Scrolls discussion list (archived still at the Orion site and worth reading through the thread) and Asia Lerner, doing some quick calculations on name frequencies, came up with 1/10, commenting at the time, “The point that I wanted to show with my little computation is that the chance is far from being nil-because even if the names themselves are frequently encountered, the chance of encountering them in a particular configuration diminishes exponentially.” If 1/10 is not considered “nil,” then surely 1/2 would be far less so. What happened I think is that non-statisticians, listening to Feuerverger’s presentation, misunderstood the probability language. What can not be proved by statistics (say with a figure of .90 or .80) is not thus made “nil” by a number close to .50. Virtually “nil” would be something close to .1, given the estimated number of tombs we are dealing with in this period and region.
All this is not to say that Elliot and Kilty are correct, but just to say, as Randy Ingermanson has pointed out, the “virtually nil” conclusion represents a fundamental misunderstanding of their results that Fuchs discussed at the conference.
2. In fact, epigraphers at the conference contested the reading of the inscription as “Mariamene.” Furthermore, Mary Magdalene is not referred to by the Greek name Mariamene in any literary sources before the late second-third century AD.
It is the case that two epigraphers at the conference disagreed with L. Rahmani’s reading of Mariamene, but it should be pointed out that those two, Stephen Pfann and Jonathan Price, also disagree with one another in significant ways. Before one discounts Rahmani, who is supported by Leah Di Segni, who recently reexamined the inscription, perhaps those of us who are not experts should acknowledge that the verdict is still out, and arguments are still to be made. Rahmani in no way agrees with any kind of Mary Magdalene interpretation, to put it mildly, but he has told Charlesworth and others that he stands firmly by his reading. If indeed, the Rahmani reading holds, the question is not how late Mary Magdalene might be referred to by this unusual form of the name, but rather, who else, in all of our records, has this form of the name, other than Mary Magdalene, and this ossuary of the Talpiot tomb.
In other words, we have lots of examples of the Greek forms Mariam, Mariame, and Mariames, and but only this single reference to Mariamene–with the letter “nun,” and it is in the special neuter diminutive form–showing endearment. So far as I know, the only other example of this form of the name in all of our ancient records is in reference to Mary Magdalene–in Hippolytus and the Acts of Philip. One must admit that is a rather strange linguistic correspondence. How likely is it that a random ossuary from a 1st century tomb, with a “Jesus son of Joseph” inscription, would also have a rare form of the name Mariam that is linked to only one identifiable “Mary” in the ancient Jewish world, namely Mary Magdalene. This is not proof that the ossuary inscription refers to Mary Magdalene, but what it does indicate, it seems to me, is that Rahmani’s reading should not be excluded from the discussion in a summary statement based on two experts who read it differently.
3. The identification of the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus’ family flies in the face the canonical Gospel accounts, which are the earliest traditions describing Jesus’ death and burial. According to these accounts Jesus was placed in the tomb of a prominent follower named Joseph of Arimathea. Since at least the early fourth century Christians have venerated the site of Jesus’ burial at the spot marked by the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
This statement hits home with me since I presented a summary of my paper on this very subject. I attempted to show that a redaction critical reading of our sources indicates that the idea of Joseph of Arimathea owning the tomb is a Matthean theological gloss, and not supported by our two independent core sources. I realize that most of those who signed the initial statement do not specialize in historical-critical readings of gospel materials. This sort of face-value reading ignores 200 years of insights into the heavily theological nature of our gospel sources. April DeConick sites this as one of the reasons she could not sign onto the Meyer/Magness statement. Further, as Kloner and others have shown, this tomb (whether the site of the 4th century Church of the Holy Sepulcher or not) was a temporary burial. Since neither historian nor believer maintains Jesus’ body remained in that initial tomb, one must hold, from an historical point of view, that he was moved to another location. So, if he was moved to another location, how can one possibly exclude the Talpiot tomb? This does not prove the Talpiot tomb was the place to which he was moved, but it fits well with the gospel accounts, read critically. Jodi Magness holds the view that he would have been reburied in a shaft tomb but the experts at the Symposium did not agree on that. That leaves open the idea that he was buried in a second rock-hewn tomb, especially since Mark and John say the tomb was chosen for emergency purposes because it happened to be nearby. So, in fact, the gospel accounts seem to support a “second tomb” theory, rather than preclude such.
4. However, Joseph Gat lacked the expertise to read the inscriptions. His supervisor and other members of the Israel Antiquities Authority believe that Gat could not have made such a statement in his lifetime since the inscriptions seem to have been deciphered only after he had passed away.
This final point in the Meyers/Magness statement I find most troubling. It implies that Ms. Ruth Gat, who reported conversations with her husband, was either deluded or lying.Either of these are very heavy charges. DeConick states on her Web site that she could not sign on to this statement for those very reasons. She did not want to get into the business of endorsing such an accusation without evidence. I was rather surprised to see a group of colleagues sign onto such a charge without further investigation. I wrote Meyers and Magness about this matter and received a reply just today that they saw no reason to change their statement. Nonetheless, in preparing to write this post tonight I went to the Duke University Web site to copy the texts upon which I wanted to comment. I found a significant sentence is missing, namely, “His supervisor and other members of the Israel Antiquities Authority believe that Gat could not have made such a statement in his lifetime since the inscriptions seem to have been deciphered only after he had passed away.” I am quite pleased to see that sort of charge is now gone, but it seems it was removed without any acknowledgment of the seriousness of the charge, or the damage it might have already done to Ms. Gat’s reputation. The original has no doubt been copied and circulated numerous times. To his credit, Stephen Pfann, on his Blog yesterday, issued an apology for such a “rush to judgment,” and one has to admire his integrity in this regard. I have not seen such an acknowledgment anywhere else.
The point I made in my own initial report on the Talpiot tomb conference was that even if Joseph Gat did indeed think the Talpiot tomb was the Jesus tomb, it would not serve as “evidence” in the sense of proving anything. He was not a historian, and I doubt if he had delved into the complexity of evaluating these names in literary sources. What it would tell us is one more bit of the puzzle in terms of how the tomb and its names first came to light and was discussed and evaluated among certain circles in Jerusalem before 1993. And that is of interest in the overall story, more and more of which was emerging even last week.
Language is as tricky and misleading as it is vital and essential. This is so much more the case when it comes to controversial topics such as evaluating the Talpiot tomb with regard to its possible identification as the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. As pointed out at the Princeton Jerusalem Symposium last week, if we were talking about the tomb of a Hillel or a Socrates that had been potentially discovered in Jerusalem or Athens, much of the discussion, and thus the language, would dramatically shift to neutral.
A helpful analogue is the 1990 discovery of a tomb just south of the Old City with ossuaries and inscriptions that some excavators and scholars identified as the family tomb of Caiaphus, including the bones of a Joseph Caiaphus, the same name as the high priest who presided over the trial of Jesus according to the gospels. Is it possible, or even likely, that this tomb is that of the Caiaphus of the New Testament? Is the evidence compelling? What are the objections and problems with such an identification? Most of that has now been sorted out, but no one maintains that it “can’t be” the tomb of Caiaphus for theological reasons–that he was taken bodily to heaven. There are in fact a few scholars who have questioned the identification with the N.T. Caiaphus. They have argued that the evidence is not sufficiently compelling to draw that conclusion, and would hold it is “a Caiaphus” family but not necessarily the Caiaphus family. I am aware of no one who has argued that it “can not be” the Caiaphus family tomb.
With the Talpiot Jesus tomb things are dramatically different–and understandably so. Because the topic is so potentially “hot” various sides have much invested in the outcome. For many, even among the scholars who have weighed in on the topic, their declared belief that Jesus rose bodily to heaven, precludes from the outset, even before any examination of evidence, that this tomb belonged to Jesus of Nazareth. Most of the academics in this category would affirm that such beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with their position that this “could not be” the Talpiot tomb. There are other sensitive issues such as a potential backlash of antisemitism, since this tomb is part of an official excavation of the Israel Antiquities Authority (Dept of Antiquities in 1980). Is holding custody of a “tomb of Jesus,” and dealing with bones of the Holy Family, really something that the Jewish State of Israel needs to be involved in? There is also a tendency among scholars to avoid sensational topics, particularly those vetted in the media (“Ark of the Covenant” “Gold of the Exodus” “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” “The Davinci Code”), so that to suggest serious consideration of this ultimate “sensational” site, a family tomb of Jesus, is bound to generate lots of scoffing and outright dismissal. The Academy is accustomed to consider far more standard subjects. And then there are the skeptics and anti-Christian folk who would dearly love it if the tomb of Jesus were found, as a way of poking the eye of evangelical and orthodox Christian believers. Finally, in a matter this sensitive, where there are no in situ photos of the excavation with the ossuaries intact, no bone reports, no official DNA tests, and no correlation record of where in the tomb a given cataloged ossuary was found, those responsible have been put on the defensive to explain the hows and whys, with resulting emotions and tensions.
At the Princeton Jerusalem symposium I tried to take notes and pay special attention to language, particularly that used when people stated their conclusions. What became obvious to me is that a given position could be stated in any number of ways, but with varying results, depending on the language. Consider the following three statements, from one single prominent member of the Symposium:
Another prominent expert has recently said “There is no evidence to support the view that the Talpiot tomb is the family tomb of Jesus.” Is this to say then such an identification is possible but not compelling, or “impossible.” The language is not clear. Others, weighing in since the Symposium, have said the identification thesis is “possibly but not likely,” “very improbable,” or “unlikely.”
Always in the background, and often in the foreground, is the Cameron-Jacobovici film with its various assertions and claims. It is entirely possible to question any number of the theses or assertions in the film but nonetheless to conclude that a scientific evaluation of the tomb itself does yield evidence in favor of the Jesus family identification. It might be beneficial to try and move the film from the center of the academic discussion, whether one views it as good, bad, or ugly. The heated emotions, provoked by the film, have seemed to shift the agenda to the filmmakers rather than an evaluation of the site.
All this aside it seems to me that we have the following range of language that might help shed some light on “Evaluating the Talpiot tomb in context,” one of the themes of the Symposium.
Given the question: “Can the Talpiot tomb arguably be identified with a family tomb of Jesus?” one might propose the following grid of responses, beyond “Definitely not.” After all, one might hold that such an identification is “definitely not” supported by the evidence, yet still consider it possible but just not proved. Or, another might totally reject the identification for compelling negative reasons.
Impossible: strong negative evidence to the contrary
Improbable: weight of the evidence does not support the thesis with some negatives weighing against
Possible but not compelling: evidence in favor is there but just not enough data and information to so conclude
Possible and compelling: bulk of the evidence fits with no serious negatives
One of the clearest ways of approaching this questing is just to list the positives and the negatives, much as Israel Knohl did on the final “Summing Up” panel. If indeed, as some have argued, Jesus could not have been buried in a rock hewn tomb, or in Jerusalem itself, then clearly this “could not be” the tomb. However, there is a wide range between “could not be” and “not enough positive evidence.”
I want to point out that I am using “possible” in the scientific/academic sense, not in the unrestricted sense, “Well, anything is possible.” One might say, for example, it is “possible” that atoms move because they are pushed by invisible demon forces,” and there is no way to “falsify” such an assertion. But in the world of science, such a “hypothesis” can not be taken seriously. In terms of the Talpiot tomb, the notion that this “could not be” the Jesus’ tomb because he was taken bodily to heaven is not on the academic table, so that the “anything is possible” refrain does not apply.
The Encyclopedia Britannica offers the following on the all-important “Principle of Falsification,” which is the bedrock of science. Those of us who are historians, working in the “soft sciences,” utilize this principle as an ideal, though often we have no methods for testing:
“Being unrestricted, scientific theories cannot be verified by any possible accumulation of observational evidence. The formation of hypothesis is a creative process of the imagination and is not a passive reaction to observed regularities. A scientific test consists in a persevering search for negative, falsifying instances. If a hypothesis survives continuing and serious attempts to falsify it, then it has “proved its mettle” and can be provisionally accepted, but it can never be established conclusively.”
What I have suggested is that we begin with a “hypothetical pre-70 CE tomb of the Jesus family,” and then compare it to the Talpiot tomb. This is the method I pursue in my article published in Near Eastern Archaeology. Such an approach does not mean that the results are merely “hypothetical,” in some reduced sense of the term, since all scientific and historical conclusions are by definition hypothetical. Just to pose the question: Can we identify this tomb with that of Jesus?” already presupposes we are considering something “hypothetical.” One has to have a method, otherwise one’s conclusions can tend to be impressionistic and unsystematic.
The use of the principle of falsification, so much as the evidence allows, offers a way to bring some clarity into our deliberations. Working with the historically constructed model of a hypothetical “Jesus family tomb” does not mean that one begins with the assumption that the Talpiot tomb is that tomb, thus “stacking the deck” in favor, as some have argued. This is simply the way that science proceeds, never with certainty, but one hopes, as my teacher Jonathan Z. Smith used to say, “in the direction of the truth.”
What this means, in the case of the Talpiot tomb, is that falsifying or negative instances, of sufficient force and certainty, would make impossible or highly improbable the identification with Jesus. What one must then do is “test” all possible “falsifications” against the evidence we have, as best we can.
A few of the proposed falsifications I heard last week at the symposium were the following:
If any of these could be established and be of sufficient weight to falsify the hypothesis being tested then one would have to conclude, depending on the certainty of the falsification, that the Talpiot tomb either “can not be” or “is highly unlikely to be” that of Jesus. So the question is, are these “falsifications” sufficient and valid?
Unfortunately, in the case of the Talpiot tomb there are any number of “falsification” possibilities that are not available to us–full DNA testing, examination of the bones in the tomb, and documented evidence of the positioning of the ossuaries in situ. If these avenues remain out of the realm of possibility then the inclusion of new evidence remains slight and we have to go with what we have. The tomb adjacent to the Talpiot tomb, if it could be explored (not excavated), might be one way of bringing in new evidence, that might either supplement or falsify the hypothesis or question, “Is this the family tomb of Jesus.”
As a follow up to the Princeton Jerusalem Symposium and all the many topics we covered I want to begin posting, as time permits, an analysis of the evidence and a positing of basic facts, including a testing of some of the major “falsifications” that have been proposed. Just today, Prof. Eric Meyers, of Duke University has posted, in behalf of a number of leading colleagues who attended the Symposium, a Blog entry on the Religion Department site (and elsewhere) that surveys the reasons they reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly unlikely. What is needed at this point is an evaluation of the strength of these “falsifications.” I hope I can contribute something helpful to that process.
Having just returned from Jerusalem I have only now had opportunity to work through the various media reports and Blogs on the Internet regarding the results of the Princeton Symposium discussion of the Talpiot tomb. Here are a few reflections in an effort to shed some “light” on the “heat.”
1. There was no official “conclusion” made by the participants, nor were any polls taken, other than the agreement at the end that there should be further examination of the tomb itself in the future. My sense is that a few would say this tomb can not be the tomb of Jesus, but that the vast majority would say that although it might be possible, there is no compelling evidence, given what we now know or possibly can know, and for some, there is evidence pointing against such an identification. Since there are no bone reports, or apparently, the possibility of full DNA testing, we seem left with what we have. A very few of those who think it might be possible would go on to say it has a probability of being the Jesus family tomb. Still, to be fair here, of those who are not convinced, I would say most find the evidence in favor to be flimsy at best. My own sense is that some of this negative judgment results from an inadequate airing of the full evidence, especially on DNA and statistics. Language here can be tricky of course. For example, Shimon Gibson said at the conclusion of the conference that based on all the evidence he “does not think this is the Jesus tomb,” but that should not be taken to mean he would say it is impossible, which I have never heard him say. He simply, like most, does not find the evidence compelling enough to move to the “probably” side of things.
I am with the “possible to likely” group, and it is not always easy to take positions that are in the minority, but my conclusions are based on my own sense of “best evidence,” and I have published them in Near Eastern Archaeology. I also think there is more to be said about the DNA testing as well as the statistical studies, some of which was misunderstood, in my view at least, at the Symposium. I will be writing more on this in coming days.
Lots of confusion comes at this point as people mix the matter of the “site” of Talpiot, with what was said in the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” film produced by Cameron and Jacobovici. I have urged, as much as possible, to separate consideration of the “site” from the “film,” but as it turned out that was often not possible, given the ways in which the film had generated lots of the issues we discussed (DNA tests, statistical studies, etc.).
2. The headline that the Symposium “vindicated” the Jacobovici film is misleading and untrue and was apparently based on a misunderstanding of an interview in which Jacobovici said: “We feel totally vindicated. My work with James Cameron was the catalyst for an international symposium that has finally considered the evidence and is opening the door for further research.” The truth is, the Symposium as a whole brought into question many important elements of the film and dealt with it rather critically, but that is not to say the issues were closed. If anything, as Jacobovici states, they were opened. I think the word “vindicated” was ill advised, but the context helps to put it in proper perspective.
3. The statement that Rut Gat, the widow of the excavator Yosi Gat, read at the close of the Symposium has grabbed a few headlines but what is causing great rancor is the charge that Jacobovici somehow orchestrated or even wrote her statement as a publicity stunt, and that her husband never said such a thing–namely that he thought the Talpiot tomb belonged to the Jesus family. No one I have talked to, including Charlesworth, had any idea what Ms. Gat might say, other than expressing thanks for remembering her husband, and Jacobovici has stated that he did not in any way shape her statement and was surprised himself when he first heard it. I think it is understandable but unfortunate that the Gat issue has taken center stage at a conference that otherwise has offered so much in terms of debate and information on the Talpiot tomb. After all, the views of the late excavator are interesting, but really offer nothing evidentially in terms of the academic evaluation of the tomb. Given the time and money Charlesworth put into the Symposium, I hope we can all look toward the substance of the conference itself, the published volume that will result, and leave personality and media issues behind. For that reason I have done no media interviews whatsoever in that I have not wanted to contribute to this misdirected flurry and confusion.
That said, I do indeed think we can construct a plausible scenario through which Yosi Gat would have not only known but have discussed the ossuary inscriptions before his death and their publication in 1994 by Rahmani. I am in the process, through interviews, of confirming this. I have to agree here with April DeConick, who remarked that it was rather ironic, given our papers on Mary Magdalene at the conference and how her testimony as a woman was discounted, that the conference echoed this at the end in the judgment of a few who were critical of this part of the program. Is it not more than a tiny bit insulting to Ms. Gat to charge that she is naive, easily manipulated, and would not be able to recount accurately her own conversations with her husband.
What I find more interesting than Ms. Gat’s recollection is the source that editor Horovitz quoted in his Friday Jerusalem Post story, which I think refers, more correctly to the 1996 “publicity” the tomb received as a result of the BBC film and was confused with the Gat matter:
In the wake of Wednesday’s declaration by Mrs. Gat that her husband knew he’d found Jesus’s tomb, an expert who insisted on anonymity charged to the Post Thursday that Israel had deliberately “covered up” the significance of the find for fear of the anti-Semitic backlash to which Mrs. Gat referred. “The Jews have suffered for 2,000 years, being blamed for the death of Jesus,” the expert said. “The last thing Israel needed was to find proof of Jesus’s earthly remains. Our relations with the Vatican would never have recovered.”
Therefore, he said, Gat and other senior archeologists and experts decided they would reject any suggestion that the coincidence of apparent Jesus-related names on the ossuaries in the tomb was significant. “When that combination of names came up, it was like winning the lottery,” this expert said. “But it was agreed that the ‘Jesus talk’ would be denied, and that it would be argued that the names were extremely common and their presence in a single Jerusalem tomb thus statistically unimportant. Mrs. Gat told the truth,” he said, “because she’s not a politician.”
My understanding is that this “expert” was involved in the meetings and deliberations on this matter, that they involved IAA meetings called by late director Drori, but that this individual feels in the present atmosphere he can not agree to be identified. Unlike Gibson, quoted in the Post story, I would not characterize such things as “conspiracy” but simply a matter of practical fact–how could Israel best handle the unbridled speculations that would result as a result of the publication of the names in the tomb, especially in the media. My hope is in a new atmosphere the full story can emerge, but it looks like that won’t be soon.
In any event I want to honor and thank Prof. James Charlesworth for all his hard work in making the Symposium possible and being willing to bring together in the same room all those who had been involved, regardless of emotions and passions. The concrete results of the conference lie ahead, both in new investigation and the publishing of the papers of this Symposium, to be published next year by Eerdman’s Press. This product will prove more lasting and enduring than media reports for a day.
The Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins that focused on the Talpiot “Jesus Tomb” in the context of Jewish Burial in late 2nd Temple times has concluded with a flurry of news stories, heated charges and counter-charges, and a few concrete results–truly a mixture of heat and light. I was able to attend every session and as time permits I will offer a detailed analysis of the various issues that were put on the table and discussed. Quite a few matters were clarified, and there is lots to discuss. Here are some links to a sampling of the main stories on the Web this weekend, reflecting various perspectives. I am sure there will be many more, plus analyses by other participants.
This report by Ben Wedeman contains a serious error in that it is said that Cameron & Jacobovici, in their film, hold the view that Jesus did not die on the cross but survived to father children with Mary Magdalene, a’ la Baigent & Brown. Such is not the case.
TIME
